Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 254 (0.74 seconds)Documents citing
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Rula & Ors on 7 March, 2000
National Insurance Company Limited vs Rajendra Mourya on 14 August, 2007
In New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rula and others (supra), facts
were slightly different. The policy of insurance of
the Truck was issued on 08-11-1991. The Truck met
with an accident on the same day at midnight. Three
occupants died. Cheque issued by the insurer for
payment of premium was dishonoured on 16-11-1991 with
the result that the policy of insurance was
cancelled.
M. Nageswara Rao vs New India Assurance Company Limited And ... on 4 April, 2002
We are inclined to follow the other two judgments, namely Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Inderjit Kaur (supra) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd, v. Rula (supra) wherein their Lordships specifically dealt with the provisions of Chapter-II of the Motor Vehicles Act dealing with the insurance policies of the vehicles to be put to use in public places and the consequences that will emanate from such a policy.
Mamta Bai & Ors vs Mangal Singh & Ors on 19 September, 2022
In the present case, admittedly the notices
were issued in regard to dishonour of cheque and cancellation of policy before
accrual of liability, therefore, the ratio of law laid down in New India
Assurance Company Limited versus Rula & Others (supra) will be of no
assistance to the appellants.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Farukh And Ors. on 19 August, 2002
The Apex Court had not changed the proposition of law laid down in the above two earlier decisions of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indrajit Kaur and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rula and Ors., regarding the liability of third party in the subsequent case of Seema Malhotra. Therefore, the appellant is liable to indemnify the award given in favour of third party, i.e., respondent No. 1. The appeal, therefore, has no force and is liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission.
Amrudas & Anr vs Mangal Singh & Ors on 19 September, 2022
In the present case, admittedly the notices were issued in regard to
dishonour of cheque and cancellation of policy before accrual of liability, therefore, the
ratio of law laid down in New India Assurance Company Limited versus Rula &
Others (supra) will be of no assistance to the appellants.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs A.B. Sivankuty And Ors. on 8 September, 2005
But the observation in paragraph 13 of the decision in Rula's case rendered by a two-member Bench was given undue importance to hold that for accidents which occurred after cancellation of policy, the Insurance Company would have no liability. The relevant portions in paragraph 13 of the judgment so relied on is as follows:
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Methi And Ors. on 14 January, 2002
In the cases of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur (supra) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rula (supra), the amount of premium was paid by the insured by cheque, which was ultimately dishonoured and as such, against the insurance policy, no premium was received by the insurance company even then the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that so far as the third party is concerned, right of realising the compensation accrues in favour of the third party on issuance of the policy and it is a concern between the insured and the insurance company and the right of third party to recover compensation from insurer would not be affected in the way so far as compensation to third party is concerned.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sivankutty on 8 September, 2005
But the observation in paragraph 13 of the decision in Rula's case rendered by a two member bench was given undue importance to hold that for accidents which occurred after cancellation of policy, the Insurance Company would have no liability. The relevant portions in paragraph 13 of the judgment so relied on is as follows:
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Prabhu Ram And Ors. on 11 October, 2001
In the cases of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur 1998 ACJ 123 (SC) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rula (supra), the amount of premium was paid by the insured by cheque, which was ultimately dishonoured and as such against the insurance policy, no premium was received by the insurance company, even then the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that so far as the third party is concerned, right of realising the compensation accrues in favour of the third party on issuance of the policy and it is a concern between the insured and the insurance company and the right of third party to recover compensation from insurer would not be affected in the way so far as compensation to third party is concerned. In the instant case, from the record it is obvious that the cover note, Exh. 11, was issued on 24.3.86, premium was received by the agent of the insurance company on 24.3.86 and on the basis of this, the insurance company issued the policy Exh. 12 for the period from 24.3.1986 to 23.3.1987 and undisputedly neither the insurance company cancelled the policy nor refunded the premium received from the insured and as such, the policy Exh. 12 was subsisting for the period from 24.3.1986 to 23.3.1987 and as such, on the date of the accident, i.e., 26.3.1986, the insurance policy Exh. 12 was very much in existence and subsisting and as such, by virtue of the above noticed provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the insurer cannot wriggle out from its liability. The Tribunal has considered the entire material in right perspective while deciding issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5. In my considered opinion, the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the appellant insurer. In this view of the matter, I find no error in the judgment impugned.