Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 422 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Modern Insulators Ltd vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 22 February, 2000

Insurer vs Smti. Juhi Rung Reang on 16 July, 2024

Furthermore, as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Modern Insulators Ltd. vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) in para No.10 it Page 16 of 23 appears that no such plea was raised by the appellant before the Tribunal at the time of hearing of argument and more so, relying upon the principle of law laid down by the appellant and also by the claimant-respondents it appears that in absence of valid permit also there was scope on the part of the Tribunal to impose liability of payment of compensation upon the insurance company with the condition that the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner and the driver and furthermore in view of the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Challa Bharathamma (supra) in para No.13 also Hon'ble the Apex Court laid down that it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award though in law it has no liability. In some cases the insurer has been given the option and liberty to recover the amount from the insured and for the purpose of recovering the amount paid from the owner, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. So in my considered view the Learned Tribunal below did not commit any error to fasten the liability of payment of compensation upon the insurance company in absence of route permit. Although no specific direction was given by the Tribunal as to whether the insurer insurance company would be able to recover the same from the driver and owner or not. So, it appears to this court that no error was committed by the Learned Tribunal below in delivering the judgment in absence of Page 17 of 23 valid route permit on the alleged day of accident. Now in respect of interest on future prospects Learned counsel for the insurance company relied upon one judgment of the Gauhati High Court dated 01.10.2019 in connection with MAC APP 378 of 2017. In para No.21 Hon'ble the Gauhati High Court observed as under:
Tripura High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Bihar Foundry & Casting Ltd. Through ... vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise on 14 March, 2022

26. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that contention of the appellant that the order is based only on the basis of the entry in the private diary, is not correct. In fact, a detailed entry-wise examination was done during the course of investigation and the entries made in the diary was also corroborated by the admission of the Managing Director in his statement 19 recorded under section 14 of the Act that the same must have occurred inadvertently. On the specific plea raised by the appellant regarding compliance of the provisions of section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it is submitted that at no point, such a plea was raised by the appellant either before the Adjudicating Authority or in the subsequent appeals. This ground has been taken up for the first time before this Court and, therefore, neither the Adjudicating Authority nor the Appellate Forum have discussed this issue in their order. Reference is made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Modern Insulators Limited versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited [(2000) 2 SCC 734]. It has been held that in an appeal, the parties cannot urge new facts. It is emphatically asserted by the Respondent that Mr. Budhia or the Appellant Company never rebutted the entries in the diary having been made in the hands of the Managing Director or his statement recorded under section 14 of the Act, were never retracted before the Adjudicating Authority any time later. Therefore, it was not open for the appellant to take such a point.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 114 - Cited by 1 - A K Singh - Full Document

United India Insu. Co. Ltd. vs Mohinder Pal Singh on 8 January, 2026

12. The main argument of the appellant is that the District Forum ignored the clear exclusion contained in Clause 4.3 and wrongly held the insurer liable. The appellant is further submitted that the reliance placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Modern Insulators Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is incorrect, as the respondent was aware of the policy terms and the complete policy was already on record.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tejpal vs Bharti Axa General Insurance Company ... on 2 June, 2016

In M/s Modern Insulators Ltd. Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., I (2000) CPJ 1 (SC), the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that it is the fundamental principle of Insurance law, that utmost good faith, must be observed by the contracting parties, and good faith forbids either party, from non-disclosure of the facts, which the parties knew. The insured has a duty to disclose all the facts, and similarly it was the duty of the Insurance Company, and its agents, to disclose all the material facts, in their knowledge, as obligation of good faith applies to both equally. It was, thus, the duty of the respondent/Opposite Party to disclose all the facts and circumstances, relating to the insurance cover, to the complainant. It was also required of the respondent/Opposite Party, to apprise the complainant of the benefits of insurance, exclusion clauses etc., contained therein. It was, under these circumstances, the utmost duty of the respondent/Opposite Party to supply the Insurance Policy alongwith terms and conditions thereof, to the appellant/complainant, so as to enable him (appellant/complainant) to go through the same and understand the clauses contained therein. Clearly, the terms and conditions were not part of Certificate of Insurance/Policy as is clearly evident from the page numbering and on comparison of contents of Annexures C-1 and R-1. No cogent evidence has been produced by the respondent/Opposite Party that Two Wheeler Insurance Policy wordings were ever brought to the notice of the appellant/complainant.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Vikram Goyal on 22 February, 2023

The case of the complainant is that opposite parties never supplied any terms and conditions of the policy along with policy schedule to them and now on the basis of false exclusion clause they want to avoid the payment of genuine claim of the complainant. On this point, our Apex Court in case titled as M/s Modern Insulators Ltd. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.-2000(1) CPR 93 (Supreme Court) 242 held that clauses which are not explained to complainant are not binding upon the insured and are required to be ignored.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next