Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 350 (1.59 seconds)
Documents citing The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Hansrajbhai V. Kodala & Ors on 4 April, 2001

National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Sinitha & Ors on 23 November, 2011

It would be relevant to notice here, that we have intentionally and deliberately drawn inferences as have been extracted hereinabove, from the observations made by this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala (supra). This exercise has been ventured, so as to obviate the possibility of missing something which did not find place in paragraph 22 of the aforesaid judgment, wherein, reasons for having arrived at the eventual conclusion in the matter were recorded. This exercise was essential because the learned counsel for the respondents had primarily placed reliance only on paragraph 15 (extracted above) of the said judgment, during the course of hearing. At times it is seen, that conclusions may have been recorded keeping in mind, the pointed controversy dealt with.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 491 - J S Khehar - Full Document

New India Assurance Co.Ltd.Through Its ... vs Shri Sanjeev Kumar S/O Late Ram Naresh ... on 21 September, 2012

Additionally, the contentions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for appellant, more particularly reliance placed by him on sub-section (4) of Section 140 has certainly not been dealt with Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala (supra). Thus, viewed, it is not possible for us to conclude that the issue arising in this case can be stated to have been settled. The assertion made by the learned counsel for the respondents, that the issue raised in the instant case, by the learned counsel of the petitioner, is no longer res integra, can therefore not be accepted.
Allahabad High Court Cites 71 - Cited by 1 - D P Singh - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mukeshbhai Bhalchandrabhai Jani Decd. ... on 25 September, 2003

8. Learned Counsel Ms. Lilu Bhaya for the appellant New India Company Assurance Company, after inviting our attention to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala (supra), wherein the Apex Court has held that the compensation under Section 163-A is an alternative and not in addition to compensation payable under Section 168, submits that since the claimants in the instant case have opted to claim compensation in addition, the Insurance Company is denied the right to cross examine on the question of income of the deceased and therefore, she requested that the matter be remanded to the Tribunal. Same is the submission of Mr. Mehta also. We are not impressed with the submission advanced by the learned Counsel and the same is required to be rejected for the simple reason that the claimants withdrew the application filed under Section 166 of the Act and have restricted their claim to the amount awarded under Section 163-A of the Act to be treated as final award. True, the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has awarded Rs.5,21,500/- with interest at the rate of 12% against the claim of Rs.4,53,000/- by way of interim compensation, which is beyond the scope of Sec.163-A of the Act. Even otherwise also the amount of Rs.5,21,500/awarded by the Tribunal is also more than the claim made in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, which was Rs.5,00,000/- only. Learned Counsel Mr. Sejpal appearing for the claimants has fairly conceded that there is an error committed by the Tribunal and he has restricted his claim to Rs.4,53,000/- submitting that the same may be treated as final award of compensation. In view of this, we see no merits in the submission of the learned Counsels for the appellant Insurance Companies that because of the addition in the compensation, the matter is required to be remanded to the Tribunal.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Chandra Singh And Anr. vs Gayatri Devi And Anr. on 16 August, 2005

[sic (67) ...However, we do not agree with the findings in Kodala (supra), that if a person invokes provisions of Section 163-A, the annual income of Rs. 40,000 shall be treated as a cap. In our opinion, proceedings under Section 163-A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose annual income is up to Rs. 40,000 can take the benefit thereof. All the other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of Motor Vehicles Act."]
Gauhati High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - I Ansari - Full Document

Prem Devi & Ors. vs Jagdish Kumar & Ors. on 2 July, 2012

In a petition under Section 163-A of the Act, compensation has to be awarded as per the structured formula (Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2004) 5 SCC 385; Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal (2007) 5 SCC 428; Oriental Insurance Company v. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala, (2001) 5 SCC 175; and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pitamber & Ors., MAC APP.304/2009 decided by this Court on 23.01.2012).
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 9 - G P Mittal - Full Document

Chandra Singh And Anr. vs Gayatri Devi And Anr. on 16 August, 2005

43. Disagreeing, however, with the views expressed in Kodala (supra) that under Section 163A, even a person, whose annual earning is more than Rs. 40,000, can maintain a claim for compensation by restricting his income to Rs. 40,000 annually, a three Judges' Bench, in Deepal Girishbhai (supra), has held, "However, this benefit can be availed of by the claimant only by restricting his claim on the basis of income at a slab of Rs. 40,000 which is the highest slab in the Second Schedule which indicates that the Legislature wanted to give benefit of no-fault liability to a certain limit."
Gauhati High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - I Ansari - Full Document

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. ... vs Smt. Shobha Babanrao Khose And Others on 14 November, 2019

Later a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) held that while the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Hansarajbhai V. Kodala & Ors. (supra) was correctly decided, but, it was clarified that Section 163-A of the said Act was a social security provision providing that only those claimants whose annual income was up to Rs.40,000/- could take benefit thereof and all other claims were required to be determined under Chapter XII of the said Act. Thus, it was made clear that where the annual income of the deceased or permanently disabled was more than Rs.40,000/-, the claim petition would ::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2019 00:56:59 ::: 8 fast14852.16.odt have to be filed under Section 166 of the aforesaid Act, which falls in Chapter XII thereof.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - M Pitale - Full Document

Narshiji Nagaji Majirana vs Mangilal Amturam Bishnoi on 2 December, 2003

The said application was filed in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala (supra) and the Tribunal granted the said application. That order came to be challenged in another appeal. By the above judgment, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed both appeals and held that the claimants were entitled to withdraw the original application under Section 166 of the Act and to pray for award under Section 163-A of the Act, notwithstanding pendency of the application under Section 140 of the Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 7 - M S Shah - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next