Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.46 seconds)Documents citing
Ramji Porte And Ors. vs Premabai Patel And Ors. on 9 January, 1998
State Of Himachal Pradesh And Anr. vs Raj Kumar And Ors. on 30 May, 2005
12. The second authority which is relevant is Ramji Porte v. Premabai Patel . In this case a 15 years old truck was being driven by the driver. It also stood proved on record that driver had been complaining about the condition of the vehicle. The court held that it has been proved that due to the fact that truck was heavily loaded and condition of the truck was not roadworthy, the tyre got punctured and thereafter arm bolt was broken as a result of which the driver lost control of the vehicle. The court held as follows:
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs D.Sivasankar on 31 January, 2014
10. The learned counsel for the second respondent contended that the name of the first respondent is very much available in the list of employees covered by the Policy and that as per the terms of the Policy, the cover of the workmen is Rs.1,00,000/- and since the award is less than the maximum, the appellant is liable to satisfy the claim. The learned counsel also placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in C.M.A.(MD) No.265 of 2004, contended that even third parties can seek compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act and even in cases not covered under the Workmen Compensation Act, the Commissioner can very well direct the Insurance Company to pay the award. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in 2000 ACJ 1359 [RAMJI PORTE AND OTHERS vs. PREMABAI PATEL AND OTHERS] and contended that insurers liability is not limited to provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act and hence sought the dismissal of the appeal.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Md. Akbar Ali And Anr. on 17 November, 2003
Mr. Banik, learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand relied on the judgment in the case of Ramji Hiralal Porte v. Premabai Pattel, reported in 1998 (2) A.J.R. 492; Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jashoda Bala Ghanta reported in 1991 A.C.J. 349; Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dhanno, reported in 1987 A.C.J. 759; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Anokhi Lal reported in II (1992) A.C.C. 68 : 1993 A.C.J. 216; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angammal ; Kishori v. Gulabkhan reported in 1988 A.C.J. 860, K.K. Rain v. Smt. Masroor Anwar ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gonti Eliza David, reported in I (1984) A.C.C. 240 : 1984 A.C.J. 8; Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Sundar Dubey reported in 1982 A.C.J. 365; Mandulova Satyanarayan v. Bodiredoy Likeshwari, ; and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Urmila Devi reported in 2003(2) T.A.C. 31.
Smt Jubeda & Ors vs New India Insurance Co Ltd on 13 October, 2011
Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the incident took place due to mechanical defect in the vehicle and that the evidence of witness of appellants i.e. AW-2 Shabbir, has been wrongly disbelieved by the learned Tribunal. As per the contents of the FIR lodged by the khallasi and the final report given by the police therein, the evidence of the claimants cannot be disbelieved. Learned counsel argued that insurance company having charged extra premium for the driver, cannot be absolved of its liability to make payment of compensation even if it is presumed that the accident took place due to own negligence of the deceased. Learned counsel in support of his argument relied on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ramji Porte and others Vs. Premabai Patel and others : 2000 ACJ 1359.
Badri Lal vs Manbhar Bai & Ors on 10 January, 2014
Of deceased Kishorbhai Popatbhai Parsana 1(2000) ACC 610 and the decision of the M.P. High Court in case of Ramji Porte & Ors. Vs. Prembhai Patel & Ors. AIR 1998 Madhya Pradesh 257, in support of his submissions.
1