Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 338 (2.62 seconds)
Documents citing B.V. Nagaraju vs M/S. Oriental Insurance Co. ... on 20 May, 1996

Icici Lombard General Insu. Co. Ltd vs Permanent Lok Adalat & Anr on 11 September, 2008

The facts of B.V. Nagaraju Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.'s case and the instant case are almost similar. 8 In that case, according to terms of the insurance policy, the insured vehicle was entitled to carry six workmen excluding the driver. If those six workmen when travelling in the vehicle are assumed not to have increased any risk from the point of view of the insurance company on occurring of an accident, how could those added persons be said to have contributed to the causing of it is the poser.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - H R Panwar - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Allahdin And Ors. on 31 May, 2006

13...Under Section 149(2)(a)(i)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the defence which the appellant insurance company can raise is in respect of the breach of specified or enumerated conditions of the insurance policy one of which being, viz. , if the vehicle allowed by permit has been used for a purpose other than the specified purpose. As noticed above, the purpose of permit of the ill-fate bus was to carry the passengers and, therefore, there is no violations of statutory provisions by the insured and as such the defence that more than 42 +2 passengers specified under the policy of insurance were carried at the time of the accident in the ill-fated bus is not available under Section 149(2)(a)(i)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act to the appellant insurance company against third party risk as the vehicle was not used for the purpose not authorized by the permit. For taking this view, we are supported by a Division Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Radhey Shyam Agarwal v. Gayatri Devi 1998 ACJ 1177 (M.P) and the judgment of the Apex Court in B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 1996 ACJ 1178 (SC).
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 6 - M A Mir - Full Document

United India Insurance Company Ltd, ... vs A. Govindan And Another on 21 January, 2000

In the light of the established factual position, I hold that the insurance company is bound to cover risk of hirer/agent or the employee travelling in any goods vehicle as passenger carried for reason or by reason of or in pursuance of contract of employment. Further, as observed by Their Lordships in B.V. Nagarajau v. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., , that breach of crying humans in goods vehicle more than the number permitted in terms of insurance policy cannot be said to be such fundamental breach so as to offer ground to the insurer to deny indemnification. I have already observed that it is not the case of the owner or the insurance company that the persons travelling in the lorry along with their goods/articles were responsible for the accident. The purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act is to compensate a person who has suffered injury. In case of death, the heirs of the deceased have to be provided some means of subsistence. Keeping in view of the nature of the Statute, the provisions have to be liberally construed.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 10 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Housing And Urban Development ... vs Leela Hotels Ltd. on 9 November, 2004

81. Considering the proposition as laid down in Manni Investment Co. Ltd Vs.Eagle Star Life Assurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) and West Brownwich B.S. (Supra) where it was emphasized that the rules of commercial interpretation ought to be applied, applicability of commercial interpretation has also been resorted to by the Supreme Court in Modi and Company (Supra). It is legitimate to take into account the surrounding circumstances for ascertaining the intention of the parties. The respondent being a public corporation could not contend that while exercising discretion to grant the permission to mortgage, appellant could be unreasonable and arbitrary after contract has been entered into. The submission of the appellant that since it had the absolute discretion, the concept of reasonableness and fairness will not be applicable seems to be illogical. If the discretion has to be exercised in a reasonable and fair manner, a fortiori, absolute discretion should also be exercised with reasonableness and in a fair manne without arbitrariness.
Delhi High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 2 - A Kumar - Full Document

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs M/S. Inland Carriers,(Bombay) on 10 December, 2013

6. After hearing of both the parties and perusal of the case papers we observed that the accident took place due to the complainants truck dashed with the another vehicle coming from opposite side. The appellant did not submit the panchaname and FIR Copy and the appellant also not submitted the surveyors assessment report. Further it is very crystal clear that the accident took place due to the complainants vehicle dashing with another vehicle coming from opposite direction and not due to carrying passengers in the truck. The Forum below rightly applied the Honble Supreme Court Judgment of B.V. Nagaraju Vs. Oriental Insurance Company. We are of the strong opinion that the Forum rightly appreciated these facts and allowed the complaint partly which needs no interference, We therefore pass the following order.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Pabindra Naryan Uzir on 13 October, 2006

12. A reading of the judgment in B.V. Nagaraju (supra) indicates to doctrine of 'reading down' the exclusion clause in the light of the 'main purpose' of the provision so that the 'exclusion clause' did not cross swords with the 'main purpose' highlighted earlier. The effort must be toharmonise the two instead of allowing the exclusion clause to snipe successfully at the . main purpose.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Shriram General Insurnace Co. Ltd vs Saddam Hussian on 26 July, 2023

(B.V. Nagaraju case, SCC pp.647g - 648a) It is plain from the terms of the insurance policy that the insured vehicle was entitled to carry six workmen, excluding the driver. If those six workmen when travelling in the vehicle, are assumed not to have 6 A/895/2019 increased any risk from the point of view of the insurance company on occurring of an accident, how could those added persons be said to have contributed to the causing of it is the pose, keeping apart the load it was carrying. In the present case the driver of the vehicle was not responsible for the accident. Merely by lifting a person or two, or even three, by the driver or the cleaner of the vehicle, without the knowledge of the owner, cannot be said to be such a fundamental breach that the owner should, in all events, be denied indemnification. The misuse of the vehicle was somewhat irregular though, but not so fundamental in nature so as to put an end to the contract. Unless some factors existed which, by themselves, had gone to contribute to the causing of the accident."
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Raghuvir Singh And Ors. on 21 August, 2004

13. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the facts of the case of B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as that was a case where breach was not so fundamental but here in the present case the breach is fundamental. The argument advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant is misconceived.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - P C Verma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next