Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing The New India Assurance vs G.Vijaya Kandiban on 7 June, 2006

Mitesh Lavji Thacker vs Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. on 30 January, 2023

18.    In the present case also, the District Forum had taken note of the fact that the Complainant had clarified in her subsequent Affidavit how the name of Hatubha Kalaji Sodha had been entered as driver in the Police complaint. It was further noted that Anwar Kasam Manjothi, who was stated to be the actual driver at the relevant time had himself submitted his Affidavit (Mark 16) and also supported by the Affidavit of Hathuba Kalaji Sodha. As already seen in the decision in "The New India Assurance Company Limited  Vs. G. Vijaya Kandiban & Anr." (supra), the view of the Supreme Court is that the object of an First Information Report from the point of view of the informant is to set the Criminal Law in motion. But, from the point of view of the investigating authorities, it is to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps for tracing and bringing to book the guilty party.  The report does not constitute substantive evidence though it is important as conveying the earliest information about the occurrence.  It can be used only as a previous statement for the purpose contemplated under the Act.  As seen from the citation relied upon by the Petitioner's side, a statement on oath is always to be placed at a higher pedestal than that mentioned in a document.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kesavan Alias Kesavaraj on 28 February, 2011

g) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. G.Vijaya Kandiban and another - (2006 (2) TN MAC 37) "23.A careful reading of the above decisions disclosed that the Supreme Court and High Court have considered that the statements before the Tribunal are made on solemn affirmation whereas the First Information Report is never loged on solemn affirmation. Therefore the statement recorded in the F.I.R. cannot be raised to a pedestal higher than that of the statement on oath. The points argued only go to show that whether the delay was wanton or with a motive. From the exhibits, which are the documentary evidence in support of the claimant's case independently on the evidence of PW1 and PW2 as well as the evidence of the Doctor PW3, besides documentary evidence, namely Exhibits P1 to P7 on which the Tribunal has assessed independently, it is seen that the claim of compensation is based on the evidentiary values. Therefore, as held by the various decisions, the F.I.R. was lodged in a haste and the same cannot be a substitute for the evidence giving exhaustive version of the occurrence.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - D Hariparanthaman - Full Document

Amrita Singh Widow /O Sh.Ravinder Singh vs Sh.Narinder Singh on 30 April, 2009

15. It had been held in the case of G. Vijaya Kandiban (supra) that the statement recorded in the FIR cannot be raised to pedestal higher than that of a statement on oath, since FIR is never lodged on solemn affirmation while the statements before Tribunal are made on solemn affirmation. Also is settled law that FIR is not to be an encyclopedia of entire sequence of facts in commission of the offences. It may or may not 7 contain the entire set of facts leading to the commission of crimes. To set the Investigation Agency in motion the facts necessary to constitute commission of cognizable offence may only suffice for registration of the first information report, but the absence of some facts in the FIR would in no way in itself be sufficient for discarding sworn statements of eye witness(es) and /or dismissal of claim petition(s).
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shanmugasundaram vs Subramanian on 14 August, 2018

vi.New India Assurance Company Limited vs. P.Arunachalam and two others 2016 (2) TN MAC 85 (DB) vii.Oriental Insurance Company limited vs. Surendra Nath Loomba and others (2012) 13 SCC 792 viii.Veera Lakshmi and others vs. Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai and others 2018 (1) TN MAC 45 ix.Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai Division) Ltd vs. D.Shanthi and others 2012 (1) TN MAC 206 x.Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, Baroda 2001 (1) TN MAC (SC) 193 xi.United India Insurance Company Limited, vs. Sunil Kumar and another 2013 (2) TN MAC 737 (SC) xii.Cholamandalam M.S.General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Amutha 2018 (1) TN MAC 135 xiii.Hemlata and others vs. Vipin Kumar and others 2012 SCC Online Del 3342 : 2014 ACJ 1248 xiv.Oriental Insurance Company limited vs.Dhanbai Kanji Gadhvi and others, Civil Appeal Nos.682 of 2011 (@ SLP (C) No.12743 of 2010) xv.Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Company limited and others, 2018 (1) TN MAC 681 (SC) xvi.United India Insurance Company Limited, vs. Rita Devi and others 2014 SCC Online Del 7523 xvii.New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs. G.Vijaya Kandiban and another 2007 ACJ 2824
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Abdulbhai Nanabhai Mansuri vs Ramanbhai Ishwarbhai Gohil on 15 September, 2022

8.1 In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. G.Vijaya Kandiban & Anr., it was held that, FIR cannot be raised to pedestrial higher that the statement on oath. The case involves the delay in lodging of FIR. The defense was raised that there had been no accident between two vehicles, as the claimant and the owner of the vehicles are closed friends and that the claim has been raised on collision to receive compensation from the Page 13 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 01:53:47 IST 2022 C/FA/3449/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2022 Insurance Company.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - G Gopi - Full Document

Shaktabhai Ramabhai Patel vs Meghabhai Bhemabhai Patel on 31 August, 2023

3.1 In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. G.Vijaya Kandiban & Anr., rendered by Madras High Court, it was held that, the FIR cannot be raised to pedestrial higher than the statement on oath, wherein a defense was raised that there had been no accident between two vehicles, as the claimant and the owner of the vehicles are closed friends and that the claim has been raised on collision to receive compensation from the Insurance Company.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - G Gopi - Full Document

New India Assurance Company Limited vs Rajendran on 2 November, 2018

14.From the materials on record, it is seen that sugarcanes were loaded in the tractor and were attached with tractor, insured with the appellant. When the tractor and trailer were going to the Sugarcane Factory to deliver the sugarcanes, the accident occurred. According to the first respondent, he travelled in the trailer, on instructions of second respondent for unloading sugarcanes in the Sugarcane Factory and the accident occurred, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor. On the other hand, the second respondent and appellant contended that in the F.I.R, the first respondent has stated the different version and in the claim petition, he has come out with new facts and the Tribunal erroneously rejected the contents of F.I.R. These contentions of second respondent and appellant are not acceptable. The Tribunal has stated that statement given on oath is acceptable http://www.judis.nic.in 9 rather than statement in F.I.R. The Tribunal has followed the judgment of this Court, reported in 2006 (2) TN MAC 37 (The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. G.Vijaya Kandiban and another), wherein, this Court has held that statement on oath is preferable to statement in F.I.R. Therefore, acceptance of statement of first respondent on oath by the Tribunal is proper and there is no illegality. The second respondent examined the driver of tractor as well as his son as R.Ws.2 and 3. The second respondent also examined R.W.4 alleged to be an eye witness. The Tribunal considering the nature of evidence given by Rws.2 to 4, held that their evidence are not acceptable and has given reason for the same. The evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.5 do not advance the case of the appellant. The contention of the appellant is that only tractor is insured under Farmers' package policy and passengers travelling in the tractor is not covered by policy. In the present case, the tractor was attached with trailer and trailer cannot move without being attached to another vehicle, which can be drawn by mechanical process. Once the tractor is insured, automatically, the insurer is liable to pay compensation for the injuries or death of the persons, who travelled in the trailer attached to tractor. In the present case, the first respondent has stated that he travelled in the tractor as loadman. The evidence let in by the second respondent and appellant did not disprove the same. The Tribunal has considered all the above http://www.judis.nic.in 10 facts in proper perspective and awarded just compensation, directing both the second respondent and appellant to pay compensation. There is no error warranting interference.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V M Velumani - Full Document

New India Assurance Company Limited vs Rajendran on 2 November, 2018

14.From the materials on record, it is seen that sugarcanes were loaded in the tractor and were attached with tractor, insured with the appellant. When the tractor and trailer were going to the Sugarcane Factory to deliver the sugarcanes, the accident occurred. According to the first respondent, he travelled in the trailer, on instructions of second respondent for unloading sugarcanes in the Sugarcane Factory and the accident occurred, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor. On the other hand, the second respondent and appellant contended that in the F.I.R, the first respondent has stated the different version and in the claim petition, he has come out with new facts and the Tribunal erroneously rejected the contents of F.I.R. These contentions of second respondent and appellant are not acceptable. The Tribunal has stated that statement given on oath is acceptable http://www.judis.nic.in 9 rather than statement in F.I.R. The Tribunal has followed the judgment of this Court, reported in 2006 (2) TN MAC 37 (The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. G.Vijaya Kandiban and another), wherein, this Court has held that statement on oath is preferable to statement in F.I.R. Therefore, acceptance of statement of first respondent on oath by the Tribunal is proper and there is no illegality. The second respondent examined the driver of tractor as well as his son as R.Ws.2 and 3. The second respondent also examined R.W.4 alleged to be an eye witness. The Tribunal considering the nature of evidence given by Rws.2 to 4, held that their evidence are not acceptable and has given reason for the same. The evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.5 do not advance the case of the appellant. The contention of the appellant is that only tractor is insured under Farmers' package policy and passengers travelling in the tractor is not covered by policy. In the present case, the tractor was attached with trailer and trailer cannot move without being attached to another vehicle, which can be drawn by mechanical process. Once the tractor is insured, automatically, the insurer is liable to pay compensation for the injuries or death of the persons, who travelled in the trailer attached to tractor. In the present case, the first respondent has stated that he travelled in the tractor as loadman. The evidence let in by the second respondent and appellant did not disprove the same. The Tribunal has considered all the above http://www.judis.nic.in 10 facts in proper perspective and awarded just compensation, directing both the second respondent and appellant to pay compensation. There is no error warranting interference.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V M Velumani - Full Document
1   2 3 Next