Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 554 (1.42 seconds)
Documents citing National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kusum Rai & Ors on 24 March, 2006

Kunjukuttanpillai vs Muhammad Hussain on 26 October, 2009

32. Though learned counsel for the insurers in these appeals have taken my attention to National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai and Ors. (supra) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal (supra), those decisions cannot be relied on for the purpose of either exonerating the insurer or giving the insurer a right of recovery for the reasons that the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 20.08.2013 in M.A.C.A.No.105 of 2012 has distinguished those decisions and held that those decisions do not apply to the situation in this state where rule 6 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules applies.
Kerala High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - T Joseph - Full Document

Shashi Bhushan & Ors. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 31 May, 2012

17. This Court in MAC APP. No.329/2010 Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Rakesh Kumar and Others and other Appeals decided by a common judgment dated 29.02.2012, noticed some divergence of opinion in Malla Prakasarao v. Malla Janaki & Ors.(2004) 3 SCC 343, National Insurance Company Limited v. Kusum Rai & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 250, National Insurance Company Limited v. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 701; Ishwar Chandra & Ors. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 650 and Premkumari & Ors. v. Prahalad Dev & Ors., (2008) 3 SCC 193 on the one hand and Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy, (1996) 5 SCC 21, New India Assurance Co., Shimla v. Kamla and Ors., (2001) 4 SCC 342, United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lehru & Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 338, National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 297, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Zaharulnisha and Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 385, National Insurance Company MAC APP Nos. 517/2007 & 897/2011 Page 13 of 15 Limited v. Geeta Bhat & Ors., 2008 (12) SCC 426, and National Insurance Company Limited v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700; on the other hand and held that in view of the three Judge Bench decision in Sohan Lal Passi(supra) and Swaran Singh(supra), the liability of the Insurance Company vis-à-vis the third party is statutory.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 8 - G P Mittal - Full Document

M/S New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Madhuri Gajanan Sawant And Ors on 27 February, 2020

9] Now the next question posed for consideration in view of the fnding reached by this Court that the Tribunal has erred in placing reliance upon the decision in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai & others reported at 2006 TAC (2), page 1, the order passed by the Tribunal to pay and recover the amount deserves to be set aside.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V L Achliya - Full Document

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. By ... vs Sivammal And Ors. on 31 May, 2007

In Kusum Rai's case, the owner of the vehicle did not contest the claim, but considering the poor background of the claimants, although the Court held that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation, in Page 1727 exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, directed the Insurance Company to pay amount and recover from the owner of the vehicle. In the case on hand, the owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 3, has appeared and contested the appeals and denied his liability.
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 5 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Shantaben Widow Of Deceased Kantibhai ... vs Yakubbhai Ibrahimbhai Patel And 2 Ors. on 28 December, 2006

14.11C It is no doubt true that the earlier judgement in the case of Nathilal and Ors. was available with the earlier Division Bench and the judgements in the case of Kusum Rai (supra) and Prembai Patel (supra) were subsequent to the Division Bench judgement and therefore the Division Bench has not an advantage of going through the said judgements. According to us all these decisions have also great bearing which decide the right of claimant, Insurance Company and third party that the larger Bench will have to decide.
Gujarat High Court Cites 96 - Cited by 17 - M S Shah - Full Document

United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Bhikhubhai Amarsinhbhai Parmar & on 8 May, 2014

In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai (supra), the Supreme Court observed that the vehicle which was used was a taxi and it was, therefore, a commercial vehicle. The driver of the said vehicle, thus, was required to hold an appropriate licence therefor. The driver of the said vehicle at the relevant time was holder of a licence to drive a light motor vehicle only. He did not possess any licence to drive a commercial vehicle. The court was of the view that evidently therefore, there was a breach of condition of the contract of insurance and it was permissible for the appellant - insurance company to raise the said defence.
Gujarat High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 7 - H Devani - Full Document

Hemraj & Anr vs Ram Dhan & Ors on 26 September, 2011

In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai (2006) 4SCC 620 the vehicle was being used as a taxi. It was, therefore, a commercial vehicle. The driver of the said vehicle was required to hold an appropriate licence therefor. Ram Lal, who allegedly was driving the said vehicle at the relevant time, was holder of a licence to drive light motor vehicle only. He did not possess any licence to drive a commercial vehicle. Therefore, there was a breach of condition of the contract of insurance. In such circumstances, the Court observed that the appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd., therefore, could raise the said defence while considering the stand of the Insurance Company. This Court, pointing out the law laid down in Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733concluded that the owner of the vehicle cannot contend that he has no liability to verify the fact as to whether the driver of the vehicle possessed a valid licence or not.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next