Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.36 seconds)
Documents citing Geeta Devi And Ors. vs Amrik Singh And Ors. on 11 November, 1989

Krishan Lal vs Mohd. Din And Others on 4 March, 1993

This court, in Geeta Devi's case [1990] ACJ 484 placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore [1988] 63 Comp Case 847 held that the mere use of the words "comprehensive policy" will not make it unlimited unless a special agreement is entered into covering liability beyond the statutory limit and in the absence of the special contract unlimited liability cannot be inferred.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Shri Krishan Lal Through L.Rs. And ... vs Shri Mohd. Din And Others on 4 March, 1993

The perusal of that policy before Supreme Court showed that no additional premium was paid by the owner. It was in view of those facts the Court came to the conclusion that the unlimited liability did not arise. The liability under the policy was the same as the statutory liability contemplated under Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act. To the same effect are the observations of our own High Court in the case of Gita Devi (supra). But the facts in this case are totally different. Here neither the original policy nor the photo copy nor even the office copy has been produced. The copy produced is on a totally different form, prepared when and from where not explained.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Khazano Devi vs Moti Lal And Ors. on 10 September, 1993

(16) So, mere fact that higher premium had been paid than requisite for Act only policy would not lead to any inference that unrestricted liability had been taken by the insurance company by issuing the policy. It is a matter of contract between the insured and the insurance company as to whether the restricted liability policy is being issued or the policy is being issued of unrestricted liability. The judgment of the Supreme Court was followed by a Single Bench of this Court in the case of Geeta Devi (supra).
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Pushpa Devi And Ors. on 13 March, 1995

Reliance is also placed on Geeta Devi and Ors. v. Amrik Singh and Ors. A bare perusal of the provisions quoted above would show that it is applicable only to a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward. The vehicle in question is Fiat car owned by respondent No. 4 and was not being used as a taxi for carrying passengers. The Insurance Company except tiling the insurance policy which is on record led no evidence and took no plea that third party risk was not covered. In the instant case the claim is against the insurer for third party. We do not find in the terms of the policy that a third party risk was not covered therein. The argument advanced by the Insurance Company in this appeal is, therefore, not available to it. is distinguishable as in paragraph 27 on which reliance has been placed there is no discussion of the contents of the insurance policy therein.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - D M Dharmadhikari - Full Document
1