Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.68 seconds)
Documents citing New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. vs Salapuriappa And Ors. on 23 February, 1996

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Takkeda Venkateswara Rao And Ors. on 10 February, 2003

In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Salapuriappa (supra), while dealing with change brought about by a new Act which came into force from 1st July, 1989, whether Section 140 of the new Act has to be given retrospective effect in the sense that it has to be given effect in the case of claims arising out of accident occurring prior to 1st July, 1989 the Division Bench answered in a negative way stating that Section 140 of the Act has no retrospective effect.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Noorjahan vs National Insurance Company Ltd., ... on 14 June, 1999

"Therefore, in the absence of clear expression by the Parliament it cannot be readily inferred that Section 140 has been intended to be given retrospective effect. We may also notice that Section 140 has been subsequently amended by Act 54 of 1994 substituting the figure Rs.25,000/- with Rs.50,000/-. If Section 140 has to be given retrospective effect as regards quantum of no fault compensation on the reasoning of the learned single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., 1991 ACJ 878 (MP) and of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in United India Co. Ltd. case, 1990 ACJ 751 (Ker.), then every time the amount of that compensation is enhanced by Parliament, that wilt have to be given retrospective effect. Moreover, such an interpretation would introduce an element of uncertainity. We find it difficult to take that view. Therefore, we have to hold that the decision of B.S Raikote, J., in New India Assurance Co. Ltd, , is not correct and runs contra to the dictum of the Supreme Court in Rl. Gupta .
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

S. Lolakshi And Another vs N. Tatiah And Others on 21 December, 1999

10. Having considered the rival contentions of both the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company v. Shri Satpal Singh (supra), after examining Section 95 of the old Act and also Section 147 of the new Act, and after considering its judgments in Pushbabai Parshottam Udeshi v. M/s. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Company Private Limited, , and Mallavas case (supra) observed that under the new Act, an insurance policy covering third party risk is not required to exclude gratuitous passengers in a vehicle, no matter that the vehicle is of any type or class. Hence the decisions rendered under the old Act vis-a-vis gratuitous passengers are of no avail while considering the liability of the Insurance Company in respect of arty accident which occurred or would occur after the new Act came into force.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 7 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

National Insurance Company Limited vs Takkeda Venkateswara Rao And Ors. on 10 February, 2003

Salapuriappa (supra), while dealing with the change brought about by a new Act which came into force from 1-7-1989 whether Section 140 of the new Act has to be given retrospective effect in the sense that it has to be given effect in the case of claims arising out of accident occurring prior to 1-7-1989, the Division Bench answered in a negative way stating that Section 140 of the Act has no retrospective effect.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Salapuriappa & Others on 5 March, 2026

b. The Tribunal concluded that the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,31,640/-, however, dismissed the claim petition as it was filed beyond the period of limitation as per law applicable to the date of the accident, by referring to the decision of the division Bench of this High Court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Salapuriappa & others1 , wherein it was held that the amendment has no retrospective effect.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Adagari Aruna & Ors. vs Kammampati @ Khambhampati Parameswara ... on 18 February, 1998

There is also no dispute about this, and in the petition itself, the claim of the appellants is that the deceased was aged 38 years. Therefore, applying the relevant multiplier 13.6, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,25,080/- including the sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium and love and affection. We have adopted the multiplier as 13.6 according to the unamended Act as Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act has no retrospective effect. We are supported in our view by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Salapuriappa, .
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - B S Reddy - Full Document

Manthena Satyanarayana Raju vs Lakkamraju Lakshmikanthamma And Ors. on 25 April, 2003

4. The accident occurred on 11-6-1989. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the new Act) came into force on 1-7-1989. The accident occurred prior to the new Act coming, into force. Though Section 140 of the new Act provides for award of Rs. 25,000/- as no fault liability compensation it has no retrospective effect which was clearly expressed by the Division Bench of this High Court in the decision referred to above. The criminal case filed against the Appellant ended in acquittal. The Tribunal did not also give a definite rinding that the Appellant was responsible for causing the accident. Since the award under no fault liability was not on the basis of a finding regarding the negligence, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards no fault liability compensation under Section 92-A of the Act. I have already observed that the new Act has no retrospective effect. As the accident occurred prior to the new Act coming into force, the provisions of Section 92-A of the Act are attracted. Section 92-A of the Act provides for award of Rs. 15,000/- only towards no fault liability compensation. The learned Counsel for the Appellant is right in asserting that the Tribunal was wrong in awarding Rs. 25,000/-.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1