Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.59 seconds)Documents citing
United India Fire And General Insurance ... vs Natvarlal And Ors. on 10 August, 1988
The Regional Manager vs Stephen Arulsamy : 1St
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mohammad Yunus And Ors. on 17 May, 2002
14. In Full Bench decision of this Court in United India Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Natvarlal 1988 ACJ 956 (MP), it was observed that the question as to whether a policy of insurance covers or does not cover liability in excess of that fixed by the statute would not normally arise before the Tribunal unless it is made an issue. It was also noted that there was a conflict of decision on the question as to who should plead and prove that the liability of the insurance company is in excess of the statutory limit. It was further observed that while impleading the insurance company, the claimant is enabled by law to know the exact terms of the policy, even though he was not a party to the contract of indemnity. If claimant, however, fails to inspect the policy of insurance and to allege that the insurance policy covers liability in excess of the statutory limit, the matter should not be decided on technicalities of pleadings, in view of the peculiar circumstances, in which an insurer is impleaded in an action for compensation. It was also observed therein that without relying on the abstract doctrine of burden of proof, the insurance company should produce a true copy of the policy of the insurance. If the insurance company fails to do so, the Tribunal should direct the insurance company to produce the same. Accordingly, it was observed in the said decision that where the insurance company concerned wishes to take a defence in the claim petition that its liability is not in excess of the statutory liability, it should file a copy of the insurance policy along with its defence and on its failure to do so, Tribunal should direct the insurance company to file such a copy.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Ram Kumar Tamarakar And Ors. on 26 September, 1989
In United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Natvarlal and Ors., 1988 MPLJ 676 = 1988 JLJ 639, a Full Bench of this Court has held that: "Insurance Company should in the interest of justice, without relying on the abstract doctrine of burden of proof, produce a true copy of the policy of Insurance". This would be all the more necessary in those cases where the Insurance Company disputes the allegations of insured about the extent of liability covered by the said policy. In this view of the matter, it was the obligation of the appellant Insurance Company to produce the Insurance Policy, which was not done. The respondents-bus-owner and driver have, by producing the policy helped the appellant-Insurance Company, in this regard. In the absence of policy, they would not have been heard to say that their liability was unlimited. Since the entire case of the appellant-Company is based on the said policy, their objection in this regard, cannot be sustained.
Usha Jain And Ors. vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 14 September, 1995
In his cross-examination, he is unable to explain why the above sum of Rs. 240/- as premium for passengers and Rs. 180/- were separately charged. As held by the Full Bench of this Court in United India Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Natvarlal 1988 ACJ 956 (MP), the question of insurance and its limit of liability should not be decided on technicalities and abstract doctrine of burden of proof. The insurance company is, therefore, essentially expected to produce the entire insurance policy with all its conditions, to explain the different amounts of premia charged to cover different categories of risks of different passengers and parties. If the insurance company failed to do so, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the company to hold that its liability for third party under the conditions of policy was not limited.
Sarjubai vs Gurudip Singh And Ors. on 2 September, 1994
16. Now coming to question No. 1, Mr. N.D. Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant, contended that in case where the owner and driver are not ex pane and are contesting the claim and where there is no collusion, in view of Section 170 of the new Act, corresponding to Section 110-C (2-A) of the old Act, the insurance company cannot be allowed to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim is made unless the conditions in Sub-sections (a) and (b) of Section 170 are satisfied. Mr. Singhal tried to make out a distinction between Section 110-C (2-A) and Section 170 and submitted that under Section 149, it is the duty of the insurer to satisfy the judgment and award against the insured. Insurance company actually is not a necessary party, only a notice is to be given to insurer to put up the objection. Therefore, by putting a reservation clause in the policy, the defences which are not available to an insurer cannot be allowed to be added or raised. An insurer is entitled to contest the claim only on the grounds which are available under Sub-section (2) of Section 149; and on other grounds if the Claims Tribunal is satisfied that there is a collusion between the person making a claim and the person against whom the claim is made or the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim. Learned counsel pressed into service a Full Bench decision in the case of United India Fire and General Ins. Co. Ltd, v. Natvarlal 1988 ACJ 956 (MP) and decisions in cases of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandakini 1989 (1) MPWN 238 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Manjula Ben 1993 ACJ 57 (Rajasthan).
New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Surgyan Wd/O Omprakash Singhaniya ... on 12 September, 1997
43. Similar view has been taken by three Judges of the Apex Court in a case reported in 1995 JLJ 331, Shanti Bai (supra) that the comprehensive policy does not cover the unlimited liability in respect of third party claim. The owner of vehicle can claim damages caused to vehicle.
United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mohammad Yunus And Ors. on 17 May, 2002
In Full Bench decision of this Court in United India Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Natvarlal and Ors. (1988 ACJ 956), it was observed that the question as to whether a policy of insurance covers or does not cover liability in excess of that fixed by the statute would not normally arise before the Tribunal unless it is made an issue. It was also noted that there was a conflict of decision on the question as to who should plead and prove that the liability of the insurance company is in excess of the statutory limit. It was further observed that while impleading the insurance company, the claimant is enabled by law to know the exact terms of the policy, even though he was not a party to the contract of indemnity. If the claimant, however, fails to inspect the policy of insurance and to allege that the insurance policy covers liability in excess of the statutory limit, the matter should not be decided on technicalities of pleadings, in view of the peculiar circumstances, in which an insurer is impleaded in an action for compensation. It was also observed therein that without relying on the abstract doctrine of burden of proof, the insurance company should produce a true copy of the policy of the insurance. If the insurance company fails to do so, the Tribunal should direct the Insurance Company to produce the same. Accordingly, it was observed in the said decision that where the insurance company concerned wishes to take a defence in the claim petition that its liability is not in excess of the statutory liability, it should file a copy of the insurance policy along with its defence and on its failure to do so, Tribunal should direct the insurance company to file such a copy.
Sureshchand vs Phulsingh And Ors. on 18 March, 1992
5. Mr. Sujan Jain, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, has supported the finding that negligence was not proved and alternatively submitted that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that the negligence on the part of respondent No. 2 is established, the respondent, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., should be held liable. He has placed a photostat copy of the insurance policy on record along with an application under Order 41, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code, read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code. Placing reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in United India Fire & Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Natvarlal 1988 ACJ 956 (MP), it was also urged that this additional documentary evidence should be taken on record and considered for disposal of this appeal.
Kunwarji vs Nisarkhan on 10 March, 1989
But, as has been held by this court in a Full Bench decision in United India Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Natvarlal [1988] MPLJ 676 ; [1990] 68 Comp Cas 558, an insurance company can be held liable to pay an amount in excess of the statutory limit under the Motor Vehicles Act if the policy covers that liability and the question as to whether an insurance company is or is not so liable, should not be decided on the abstract doctrine of burden of proof. In the instant case, the insurance policy has been filed by the insurer and, therefore, the liability of the insurer cannot be fixed beyond what has been covered in the policy, i.e., say not beyond an amount of Rs. 50,000.