Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Vibhishan Mahto @ Vibhishan Prasad & ... on 4 December, 2012

Gajanand vs Rajpal Sharma & Ors on 15 January, 2014

This contention is directly dealt by Delhi High Court in case title Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company Ltd Vs Vibhishan Mahto @ Vibhishan Prasad and Ors MAC. APP. 756/2010 dated 04.12.2012. In Suit No. 98/11/08, Gajanand VS Rajpal Sharma & Ors 12 this case Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that this is not violation of condition envisaged u/s 149(2) M.V. Act, thus, even if this violation is proved by the insurance company, it can not avoid its liability to indemnify the owner.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sonia Bhardwaj vs Santosh Gulia on 7 October, 2013

27. The main ground of challenge by the insurance company is that R2 is not the authorized person to drive the vehicle. Hence, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. This contention is directly dealt by ith the Delhi High Court in case title Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company Ltd Vs Vibhishan Mahto @ Vibhishan Prasad and Ors MAC. APP. 756/2010 dated 04.12.2012. In this case Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that this is not violation of condition envisaged u/s 149(2) M.V. Act, thus, even if this violation is proved by the insurance company, it can not avoid its liability to indemnify the owner.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vinod vs Mohd. Akil S/O Sh. Riazuddin on 21 August, 2013

In the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Vibishan Mahto @ Vibhishan Prasad & Ors. MAC App. No. 756/2010 decided on 04.12.2012, the Hon'ble High Court in para no.8 was pleased to hold that cases where the vehicle does not possess a valid permit at all for the area where it was being plied would amount to violation of the conditions of the insurance policy. In the present case as per the evidence of respondent no.3, the vehicle was being plied in an area for which he did not have a permit. In these circumstances, it is therefore held that the liability to bear the assessed compensation will be on the respondents 1 and 2 but the same shall be deposited by the respondent no.3 insurance company with the right to recover the same from the respondents 1 and 2.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1