Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing Komeravel Gounder vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... on 16 October, 2012

M/S.National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat & Ors. ... on 15 March, 2013

53. Reverting back to Komeravel Gounder v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company reported in CDJ 2012 MHC 5141, upon perusal of Ex.B2  Policy, the Division Bench has also found that the premium paid was only for the own damage of the vehicle. Under Act only policy, the liability to the third party is unlimited. But under Comprehensive Insurance Policy, the owner can claim the amount, for the loss of damage suffered, to be the estimated value, calculated under the Rules and Regulations and insofar as the owner is concerned, a separate premium has to be paid and since no additional premium was paid, for payment of compensation under the Policy taken, for the death of the owner, who met with an accident, the claimants were paid only Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (No Fault Liability).
Madras High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 1 - S Manikumar - Full Document

The National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Krishnan on 15 March, 2013

In Komeravel Gounder v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company reported in CDJ 2012 MHC 5141, when the owner of a Maruti Car, was driving a vehicle, a dog suddenly crossed the road and in order to avoid the accident, the owner swerved the car on to the right side of the road, lost control, the vehicle hit against a tamarind tree and that, he sustained grievous injuries and despite treatment, succumbed to the same. Legal representatives claimed compensation. The company objected to the claim, contending inter alia that the policy covered only third party risks and that therefore, as per the terms of contract, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Ex.P2  Policy has been filed. Evidence to that effect has been adduced on behalf of the Company. Since no extra premium was paid for personal accident coverage for the owner, the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation for the death of the injured. However, the Tribunal directed the insurer to pay Rs.50,000/- towards No Fault Liability. Being aggrieved by the same, legal representatives of the deceased preferred an appeal to this Court. On the above pleadings and evidence, a Division Bench of this Court framed two issues for consideration,
Madras High Court Cites 71 - Cited by 31 - S Manikumar - Full Document

The United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Samuthirakani on 11 October, 2022

9.On the side of the respondents, a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, reported in 2013 (1) TN MAC 120 in the case of Komeravel Gounder vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, is cited, wherein it is held that, 4 / 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.1050 of 2012 "13.So far as the merit of the Appeal is concerned, the only submission made on behalf of the Appellant-Company is that the deceased in the present case was Owner-cum-Driver, therefore, the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs.2.00 lakhs as mentioned in the Insurance Policy. No other submission has been advanced on behalf of Appellant. The findings of the learned Tribunal in respect of other issues have not been challenged.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Tharani - Full Document

The United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Samuthirakani on 11 October, 2022

9.On the side of the respondents, a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, reported in 2013 (1) TN MAC 120 in the case of Komeravel Gounder vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, is cited, wherein it is held that, 4 / 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.1050 of 2012 "13.So far as the merit of the Appeal is concerned, the only submission made on behalf of the Appellant-Company is that the deceased in the present case was Owner-cum-Driver, therefore, the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs.2.00 lakhs as mentioned in the Insurance Policy. No other submission has been advanced on behalf of Appellant. The findings of the learned Tribunal in respect of other issues have not been challenged.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Tharani - Full Document

T.R.Sivanathan vs R.S.Shanmugam on 10 August, 2015

The same view is reiterated in another Division Bench judgment in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. P.Shanthi @ P.Santhamani and others, reported in 2011 1 TNMAC 227 (DB) referred to in para-52 of the same judgment and in the case of Komeravel Gounder vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, reported in 2013 (1) TNMAC 120(DB) referred to in para 53. The learned brother Judge, in para 54, has ultimately held that if the Owner-cum-Driver takes a personal accident cover policy, then he can maintain a claim against the insurer for compensation. The learned brother Judge then proceeded to decide the meaning of expression accident arising out of and use of motor vehicle and answered in para 55 that in order to maintain claim under Section 163-A and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, what is required is the use of vehicle when an accident had occurred irrespective of the fact, whether the vehicle is on road, driven, repaired, parked, kept, stationary or left in an unattended condition of vehicle in question. The learned brother judge, after defining an accident as mishap or an untoward happening not expected and designed to have an occurrence, is pleased to hold that the claimant/Owner-cum-Driver, having paid the additional premium and coverage, is entitled to maintain the claim for the injuries sustained by him in the accident occurred by use of the vehicle.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - K B Vasuki - Full Document

(O&M) United India Ins.Co.Ltd vs Rajiv Yadav Etc on 21 December, 2023

Before proceeding further, it is appropriate to make reference to the decision rendered in Komerval Gounder and others vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, 2013(1) T.N.M.A.C. 120 , wherein, it was held that a statutory liability cannot be more than what is required under the statute and when such being the legal position, the limited statutory liability cannot be expanded to make it unlimited or higher. The relevant paragraph No.24 reads as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A Puri - Full Document
1