Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing Hdfc Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shantidevi Rajbalsingh Thakur And Anr. on 5 July, 2007

Smt. Sushma Wd/O Suresh Sonone And ... vs Pradeep S/O Manikchand Sancheti And ... on 12 December, 2025

15. The submission of respondent-Insurance Company is that in the case of HDFC Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shantidevi Rajbalsingh Thakur and another 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 592, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that where the owner or person plying the vehicle found to be negligent, then he comes into the category of tortfeasor and, thereby, he is not entitled for the compensation. This legal position is not disputed. But for that purpose, it is the responsibility of the Insurance Company to establish on record by independent evidence that the fa 152-2011.odt 9/11 person who was driving the vehicle was either borrower or the owner of the vehicle. Unless this fact is proved beyond doubt, the Insurance Company cannot be given the benefit of the same.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Balwant Singh (Father Of Deceased) vs Sh. Keshav Dut Pandey S/O Sh. Heera on 9 June, 2011

5. In the case in hand, deceased Narender Singh was himself driving the motorcycle no. DL­6SX­1024 and met with an accident and no other vehicle had hit him. In the present case, claimants are the LR's of deceased who was himself driving the motorcycle and the claim has been made against Insurance co. of the motorcycle no. DL­6SX­1024 which was being driven by the deceased. Since the deceased was himself negligent, therefore, his LR's cannot come under the category of 3rd Party in view of ratio of case law namely HDFC Chub Appellant Vs. Shanti Devi Rajbalsingh Thakur Ors (Supra). The insurer of the MACT No. 306/10 2 of 3 motorcycle which was being driven by the deceased himself cannot be held liable to indemnify its owner for the death of Narender who was driver of the vehicle.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manju Tiwari vs Vijay Kumar Sharma S/O Sh Laturia Ram on 17 September, 2013

17 The contention of the insurance company is that the deceased himself was a tort­feasor and hence, he cannot be termed as a victim u/s 163 A of the MV Act. She has placed reliance on the following judgment:­ 2008 ACJ 1280 M/s HDFC CHUBB General Insurance MACP No. 109/11/04 Manju Tiwari v/s Vijay Kumar 7 of 14 Company Ltd. Vs. Shanti Devi, Rajbalsingh Thakur & Anr. as follows:
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Suresh Sakharam Kadam vs The Transport Manager,Thane Municipal ... on 27 June, 2017

22. The MACT also relied heavily on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in HDFC Chubb General Insurance Co Ltd v Shantidevi Rajbalsingh Thakur & Anr,11 in particular for its observations in paragraph 44. While allowing the appeal and setting aside a judgment that made an award under Section 163-A for the death of a gratuitous driver of an insured motor cycle, the learned single Judge in HDFC Chubb said:
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - A Oka - Full Document

Vitthal Balaji Landge vs Shrihari Tukaram Shrirame & 4 Ors on 12 June, 2019

7. The Claims Tribunal has taken into consideration the provisions ::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2019 05:33:17 ::: 6 FA184.08 of Section 167 of the said Act and has awarded the compensation accordingly. When compensation under the Act of 1923 is being awarded, the question of negligence would not be relevant. The requirement as contemplated under the Act of 1923 is that the accident in question has occurred during the course of employment of the deceased. It is not disputed that the accident in question occurred when the deceased was engaged by the appellant and while he was proceeding for the work of the appellant. The ratio of the decision in HDFC (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 cannot apply to the case in hand as the adjudication in that case was under the said Act, while in the present case compensation is being awarded by applying provisions of the Act of 1923. Hence, the award of compensation is liable to be maintained.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A S Chandurkar - Full Document

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Shibnath Panda @ Shewnath & Ors on 10 December, 2013

In support of such contention, he cited four decisions reported at 2009 ACJ 1993 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Putul Nazir & Ors.), 2005(1) T.A.C 994 (Kant) (Appaji (since deceased) and Another Vs. M. Krishna & Anr.), 2006(1) T.A.C 969 (S.C) (Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs. Bidyadhar Dutta & Ors.) and 2008 ACJ 1280 (HDFC Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shantidevi Rajbalsingh Thakur & Anr.). According to the said learned advocate, the appellant Insurance Company is not liable to make any payment of the compensation amount. The said learned advocate draws our attention to support of the above reports in support of his submissions.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - T K Dutt - Full Document
1   2 Next