Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Darshan Singh And Ors. on 12 August, 1991

Dharamvir Singh Punjabi And Anr. vs Raghuvar And Anr. on 30 July, 1996

17. Learned counsel for the owner and driver of the vehicle placed reliance on the cases of Prabhuvati Sharma v. Brijmohan Parihar 1990 ACJ 399 (MP); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Darshan Singh 1992 ACJ 533 (Delhi); Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dulari Devi 1995 ACJ 9 (Patna); and Krishan Lal v. Mohd. Din 1993 ACJ 907 (Delhi); on the point that the limited liability of the insurance company could not be inferred in view of the fact that a tractor was not a goods carrier or a passenger carrier. The question of liability in those cases was considered on the basis of the insurance policy and the facts raised in those cases are entirely different. In those cases the insurance policy was not taken into consideration and therefore limited liability could not be taken as pleaded by the insurance company. But in the present case, the insurance policy is filed on record which has been proved and the plea taken by the insurance company was legal that its liability is limited.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Krishan Lal vs Mohd. Din And Others on 4 March, 1993

36. In view of these repeated observations of the Supreme Court, it was incumbent on the insurance company to have properly proved the insurance policy and filed it with the written statement which was filed way back in March, 1980. Having not done so, the only irresistible conclusion which can be drawn is that had the insurance policy been produced, it would have proved that there was a special contract covering the third part risk to an unlimited extent. The Division Bench of this court in the case of New India Assurance Co. v. Darshan Singh [1992] Rajdhani Law Reporter 246, observed that a printed copy of the policy brought on record by a witness of the insurance company cannot inspire confidence; hence in the absence of the original policy the liability of the insurance company remains unlimited. Similarly in the present case also, not even the office copy has been produced. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the facts, which have come on record, I have no hesitation to conclude that the liability of the insurance company is unlimited. Looking from another angle also I can say that the arguments of counsel for the respondent insurance company are wholly untenable, that it was for the owner to prove that extra premium was paid to cover unlimited liability. Borrowing the words of Desai J. in the case of Narcinva.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Shri Krishan Lal Through L.Rs. And ... vs Shri Mohd. Din And Others on 4 March, 1993

33. In view of these repeated observations of the Supreme Court, it was incumbent on the insurance company to have properly proved insurance policy and filed it with the written statement which was filed way back in March, 1980. Having not done so, the only irresistable conclusion which can be drawn is that had the insurance policy been produced, it would have proved that there was a special contract covering the third party risk to an unlimited extent. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. v. Darshan Singh, 1992 Rajdhani Law Reporter (DB) page 246 : (AIR 1992 Delhi 329), observed that a printed copy of the policy brought on record by a witness of the insurance company cannot inspire confidence; hence in the absence of original policy the liability of the insurance company remains unlimited. Similarly in the present case also, not even the office copy has been produced. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the facts, which have come on record, I have no hesitation to conclude that the liability of the insurance company is unlimited. Looking from another angle also I can say that the arguments of the counsel for respondent insurance company are wholly untenable, that it was for the owner to prove that extra premium was paid to cover unlimited liability.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Narender Singh S/O Late Sh. Randhir ... vs Sudarshan Kumar (Deceased) Through His ... on 17 March, 2004

20. Before adverting to the Tariff, it is necessary to mention another submission by learned counsel for the Appellants. He says that whatever be the worth of Exhibit RW-1/A, the insurance policy is a comprehensive policy. To this extent there is no disagreement between learned counsel. What is further contended by learned counsel for the Appellants is that if the policy is a comprehensive one then the liability of the insurance company is unlimited. Reliance was placed on two Division Bench decisions of this Court, namely, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Darshan Singh, 1992 ACJ 533 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kailash Rani, 1996 ACJ 564 and a decision of a learned Single Judge in Raj Rani vs. Banwari Lal, 1996 ACJ 175.
Delhi High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 4 - M B Lokur - Full Document

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs Geeta & Ors. on 2 July, 2012

18. A Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Darshan Singh & Ors., 1992 ACJ 533 held that where the Insurance Company wish to take a defence (in a Claim Petition) that its liability was not in excess of statutory liability it should file a copy of the insurance policy along with MAC APP 479/2004 Page 13 of 14 its defence. It was observed that a printed copy of the policy would not be enough to prove the plea of limited liability.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - G P Mittal - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs K.R.Murgeshan & Ors on 2 July, 2012

18. A Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Darshan Singh & Ors., 1992 ACJ 533 held that where the Insurance Company wish to take a defense (in a Claim Petition) that its liability was not in excess of statutory liability it should file a copy of the insurance policy along with its defense. It was observed that a printed copy of the policy would not be enough to prove the plea of limited liability.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - G P Mittal - Full Document

Pratap Singh And Ors. vs Shish Pal And Anr. on 6 December, 1993

(10) If that is the position, it is not possible to hold that mere fact that the insurance co. had not contested the case before the Tribunal the presumption should be raised that this vehicle must have been insured with this particular insurance co. Even in an ex-parte case the claimants had to lead evidence to prove the basic fact for proving the liability of a particular party. It is not that the claimants had no means whatsoever to prove that in fact the vehicle stood insured with a particular insurance co. As already discussed by me above, the claimants could have moved some application before the Tribunal u/S. 98 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, requiring the Tribunal to make a direction to the owner of the vehicle to disclose the particulars of the insurance policy but no such effort was made If the owner despite such direction had not cared to disclose the particulars of the policy the said owner would have been liable for criminal prosecution u/S. 112 of the said Act. Even otherwise the owner of the vehicle could have no reason to suppress the insurance policy if such a policy existed because the existence and production of such a policy would have absolved the owner of all liability for the claim arising out of this accident. So, there could be no reason for the owner to have suppressed the said policy of insurance if in case the vehicle stood insured at the relevant time. The record does not show as from where the claimants had been able to obtain the name of the insurance co. for being joined as one of the respondents in the claim petition. Counsel for the appellants had, however, at the Bar stated that the name of the insurance co. was supplied by the owner of the vehicle orally. If the owner was so cooperative with the appellants there was no reason as to why the owner would not have disclosed the particulars of the said insurance policy to the claimants, [In para 12 New India Ass. Co. vs. Darshan Singh 1962 Acj 533 is held as inapplicable], (11) I hold that the insurance co. would not be liable for any claim arising out of this accident as it is not proved that the vehicle in question stood insured with the said company. The finding of the Tribunal that the father of the deceased was not entitled to any amount as he was not one of the legal heirs within the purview of the Hindu Succession Act is not in accordance with law as in view of the provisions of Section 1-A Para 2 of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, which lays down that "every such action or suit shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child". So, the compensation which has to be awarded in a fatal accident pertaining to the vehicle has to be for the benefit of parents which would include also the father.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Dharam Singh & Ors on 17 July, 2012

11. A Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Darshan Singh & Ors., 1992 ACJ 533 held that where the Insurance Company wished to take a defence (in a Claim Petition) that its liability was not in excess of statutory liability it should file a copy of the insurance policy along with FAO 262/1997 Page 4 of 5 its defence. It was observed that a printed copy of the policy would not be enough to prove the plea of limited liability.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - G P Mittal - Full Document

National Insurance Company Limited vs Angelina & Ors. on 2 July, 2012

18. A Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Darshan Singh & Ors., 1992 ACJ 533 held that where the Insurance Company wish to take a defence (in a Claim Petition) that its liability was not in excess of statutory liability it should file a copy of the insurance policy along with its defence. It was observed that a printed copy of the policy would not be enough to prove the plea of limited liability.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - G P Mittal - Full Document
1