Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 315 (1.26 seconds)
Documents citing National Insurance Company Ltd vs Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors on 22 January, 2008

National Insurance Company Ltd vs Rameshchandra Keshavlal Raval & 2 on 7 May, 2014

In the present case, the accident having occurred on 21.8.2000, the same would be squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria @ NESARAGI & Ors (supra) and, as such, it cannot be said that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid license. As regards the contention that the claimant was a Page 5 of 6 C/FA/1116/2014 ORDER passenger in a goods vehicle and that the risk was not covered, a perusal of the insurance policy in question reveals that the premium for legal liability of a passenger had also been paid. Under the circumstances, the contention that the risk of the passenger is not covered under policy, does not merit acceptance. Besides, a perusal of the entire record reveals that no evidence has been led by the insurance company in support of its say that the risk was not covered under the policy. In the absence of any evidence having been led and any contention in this regard having been raised before the Tribunal, this being a question of fact, there is no warrant for interference at the appellate stage.
Gujarat High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - H Devani - Full Document

Mukund Dewangan vs Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd. on 11 February, 2016

whereas in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra), this Court laid down that before 28.3.2001 there was no necessity for holder of licence to drive light motor vehicle to have endorsement to drive transport vehicle; whereas in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir & Anr. (supra) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol & Ors. (supra), the view taken is that it is necessary for holder of light motor vehicle licence to obtain specific endorsement on licence, to drive transport vehicle of the light motor vehicle weight as provided in section 2(41).
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - A Mishra - Full Document

N.I.C.Ltd vs Aashish Kumar & Anr on 7 August, 2012

No doubt, in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria, reported in 2008 ACJ 721 (SC), the date of the accident was 9.12.1999, i.e, prior to the amendment, whereas, in the present case, the accident is of the year, 2003. However, the fact remains that neither the license of the present appellant was cancelled nor the amendment provides that the license issued earlier shall stand cancelled or that the citizen should apply for fresh driving license in view of the amendment. Thus, while applying the amendment, it is the date of license which is required to be taken into consideration.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Madan Singh vs The Branch Manager on 3 February, 2023

The view taken with respect to the pre-amended position, before the amendment of Form 4 on 28-3-2001 appears to be correct for the reasons discussed by us. However, no change has been brought about by insertion of Form 4 after 28-3-2001 with respect to LMV category transport vehicle, thus, Annappa Irappa Nesaria [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria, (2008) 3 SCC 464 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 945 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 99] cannot be taken to be laying down correct legal position applicable after 28-3-2001. With respect to the post- amendment legal position, the decision cannot be said to be laying down the correct law. However, this Court has rightly opined in the aforesaid case that the person holding a licence to drive "light motor vehicle" could have driven "light passenger carriage vehicle" and "light goods carriage vehicle"
Jharkhand High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S K Dwivedi - Full Document

New vs Pankajsinh on 11 November, 2008

In view of this factual aspect, contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Shah cannot be accepted in view of apex court decision in case of Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra) and also because driver was having licence to drive light motor vehicle as defined under sec. 2(21) and, therefore, in view of the provisions as then existed, it includes light transport vehicle. Light motor vehicle is defined in section 2(21) and, therefore, in view of the provisions as then existed, it included a light transport vehicle. Form 6 provides for the manner in which the licence is to be granted, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Ambaresh S/O Hanumanth, vs Kutubuddin S/O Khadarsab Balutagi, on 31 May, 2013

12. As against this, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants, Shri Laxman T. Mantangani, substantiated the reasoning given by the Tribunal regarding fastening liability, stating that, after due : 16 : appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and following the judgment of this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court, the Tribunal has fastened the liability. Therefore, interference by this Court is not called for. To substantiate his submission, he has taken us through the reasoning given in paragraph No.13, wherein reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein it is held that the licence obtained by the driver of the vehicle is valid. Further it is observed that person having licence to drive L.M.V. would be deemed to have authority to drive transport vehicle and not exceeding 7,500 kg. laden weight, weight of the vehicle and in the instant case, the vehicle involved is weighing about 975 kg., and he deemed to have the effective driving licence to drive the vehicle involved in the instant case and the reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Insurer cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and they have not produced any documents to show that the : 17 : vehicle involved is weighing more than 7,500 kg. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained and also Ex.R-2 - registration letter issued and since the driver of the vehicle has got valid licence as on the date of the accident, not having authorization to drive the transport vehicle may not invalidate. Nor it is the case of the appellant - Insurer that they have initiated any separate proceedings against the owner and driver regarding not having valid licence. The claimants being a third party, sustained injury and are seeking redressal of their grievance for compensation on account of injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Taking such stand in the instant case is not justifiable. Taking into consideration, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and after perusal of the reasoning given by the Tribunal in paragraph Nos.12, 13 and 14 of the judgment, wherein the Tribunal has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court 2009 (1) TAC page 826 (Patna) wherein their lordships have observed that any person : 18 : having licence to drive L.M.V. would be deemed to have authority to drive transport vehicle not exceeding laden weight of 7,500 kgs., and the licence held by the driver of the offending vehicle is valid because the weight of the vehicle is only 975 kgs., and further as held by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and Others reported in 2008 ACJ 721, the driver in the instant case was driving a van which had a goods carriage permit and Insurance Company seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that driver did not possess an effective driving licence to drive a transport vehicle. The Tribunal held that driver was authorised to drive the vehicle as the unladen weight of the vehicle is less than 7,500 kg., and the High Court did not accept the contention of the Insurance Company that it has no liability on the ground that there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The transport vehicle has now been substituted for medium goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle in Form No.4 but L.M.V. continued to cover : 19 : both, light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle. Whether a driver who had valid licence to drive a L.M.V. was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well and upheld that he has got valid licence. This aspect of the matter has been rightly considered and appreciated and recorded the concurrent finding of fact against the appellant - Insurer, and the same is strictly in consonance with the material on file. Taking into consideration, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court interference by this Court is not called for. However, so far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the insurer is concerned, there is no dispute or quarrel with regard to the ratio of law laid down in the said judgment but te same cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand for the reason that in the case on hand the driver was holding driving licence to drive the L.M.V. and the vehicle was weighing around 975 kgs. This aspect has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and held that, under such circumstances, there : 20 : is no need to obtain authorisation from the jurisdictional R.T.O. Hence, we answer Point No.2 against the appellant - Insurer, upholding the reasoning given by the Tribunal.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next