Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing National Insurance Company Limited vs G.Arumugam on 22 March, 2010

United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs M.Selvaraj on 28 January, 2020

9. On perusing the orders passed by the Tribunal, it is seen that the Tribunal based on the copy of the charge sheet (Ex.R1) and enquiry report (Ex.R2) has held that the rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 21 K 9055 was not in possession of a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. Further, the Tribunal relied on the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. G.Arumugam and another reported in 2010 (2) TNMAC 362 and held that the appellant / Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants in the first instance and then recover the compensation from the second respondent / owner of the offending 4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in CMA.Nos.777 and 778 of 2012 motorcycle. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is no perversity in the said finding warranting interference by this Court. Therefore, the orders passed by the Tribunal in MCOP.Nos.223 of 2007 and 224 of 2007 are upheld.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V B Subbaroyan - Full Document

The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Thulasi …Respondent/Petitioner on 7 November, 2022

4.The Tribunal on considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle, the accident has occurred. The contentions raised by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company during the arguments that the 1st respondent had violated the policy conditions by allowing 21 persons travelled in a goods vehicle and therefore, the 2nd respondent is not liable to compensate the 1st respondent, was rejected on the ground that as per Ex.R.1 – Insurance Policy, the owner-cum-driver and 3 employees were covered under the Policy. The Tribunal took the view that there was a compulsory coverage for the owner-cum-driver and 3 employees and at the time of accident, 10 persons were travelling. The petitioner was a third party and following the Judgments in National Insurance Company Limited, Kovilpatti v. G.Arumugam and another reported in 2010 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.2683 of 2012 (2) TNMAC 362, directed the 2nd respondent Insurance Company to pay compensation and recover the same from the 2nd respondent. As regards the quantum of compensation, a sum of Rs.2,31,000/- was awarded. Challenging the Award of compensation to the petitioner, the Insurance Company is before this Court. Challenging the low amount of compensation granted, the 2nd respondent Insurance Company has filed the above Cross Objection.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - P T Asha - Full Document

The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Thulasi …Respondent/Petitioner on 7 November, 2022

4.The Tribunal on considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle, the accident has occurred. The contentions raised by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company during the arguments that the 1st respondent had violated the policy conditions by allowing 21 persons travelled in a goods vehicle and therefore, the 2nd respondent is not liable to compensate the 1st respondent, was rejected on the ground that as per Ex.R.1 – Insurance Policy, the owner-cum- driver and 3 employees were covered under the Policy. The Tribunal took the view that there was a compulsory coverage for the owner- cum-driver and 3 employees and at the time of accident, 10 persons were travelling. The petitioner was a third party and following the Judgments in National Insurance Company Limited, Kovilpatti v. G.Arumugam and another reported in 2010 (2) TNMAC 362, 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.2683 of 2012 directed the 2nd respondent Insurance Company to pay compensation and recover the same from the 2nd respondent. As regards the quantum of compensation, a sum of Rs.2,31,000/- was awarded. Challenging the Award of compensation to the petitioner, the Insurance Company is before this Court. Challenging the low amount of compensation granted, the 2nd respondent Insurance Company has filed the above Cross Objection.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - P T Asha - Full Document
1