Haseena Sulthana And Ors. vs National Thermal Power Corporation ... on 14 November, 2006
In support of this contention, he relied on the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in Narendera Nath Halder v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.39 seconds)Documents citing
Harendra Nath Halder And Ors. vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. on 5 July, 2004
) Sh. Jai Bhagwan S/O Sh. Amar Singh vs ) Sh. Om S/O Sh. Umed Singh on 2 April, 2011
The present petition has been filed under section 163-A of Motor
Vehicle Act and thus the second schedule of the Act shall govern most of the
conditions pertaining to award of compensation. Counsel for the respondent
no. 3 cited case laws Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Hansrajbhai
V. Kodala (2001) 5 SCC 175, Deepal Girishbhai Soni vs. United India
Insurance Company Ltd. 2004 ACJ 934 and Harendra Nath Halder vs.
New India Assurance Company II (2005) ACC 3 (Calcutta) in which
certain principles relating to proceedings under section 163-A of the Act are
defined.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Bikash Kali Mondal & Anr on 29 July, 2013
Learned Advocate for the claimant/respondent on the contrary
argued, the claimant initiated the claim under Section 163A of
M. V. Act and in such a case there is no question to prove
fault or negligence or wrongful Act on the part of the owner of
the vehicle and the claimant is entitled to get legitimate
amount on no fault theory from the Insurance Company or
owner. He also referred case of Harendra Nath Halder and
others Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and another
reported in 2005 Volume-I Transport and Accidentss Cases
Page-238 and another case Rita Devi and others Vs. New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2000 Accidents Claims
Journal Page- 801 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Malathi C. Salian reported in 2004 Volume-I Transport and
Accidents Cases Page-511 in support of his contention.
On scrutiny of the materials on record it transpires that the
motor accident claim Tribunal passed an award against the
objector-appellant with an observation that the claim
application had been filed under Section 163A of M.V. Act and
the provision of such act would exclude determination of
compensation on the principle of fault liability. So, the
petitioner/claimant was not required to prove negligence. The
petitioner was only obliged to prove, the accident occurred by
the involvement of the offending vehicle.
1