Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.54 seconds)
Documents citing G. Nagendra Devi And 3 Others vs Y. Mosses And 2 Others on 26 June, 2001

The Icici Lombard General vs )Annakkili on 6 February, 2012

129. When the insurance company can be said to have discharged its initial burden of proving that the driver of the vehicle had no licence, has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in G.Nagendra Devi and others Vs. Mosses 2)National Insurance Company Limited, T.Nagar, Chennai, 3)Dr.Ambedkar Transport Corporation Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, Chennai, reported in 2001 (3) L.W 261, wherein, this Court held that if the insurance company fails to verify the records from the concerned authority (R.T.A), as to whether the rider of the motor cycle was having a valid licence or not, then the insurance company cannot be said to have discharged its burden and proved that the rider of the vehicle did not possess a valid licence and in such circumstances, the Company is liable to pay compensation. Mere pleadings in the counter affidavit or written statement by the insurers before the Claims Tribunal, that the insured has committed breach of policy conditions or statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, alone is not sufficient to prove that they have discharged their burden of proof of non-possession of licence or breach/breaches, so fundamental to have contributed to the cause of the accident, so as to avoid its liability to the insured. Thus, it could be seen from the line of judgments stated supra, that despite pleadings and leading oral evidence by the Insurance Companies, the Supreme Court and High Courts have recognised only an authentic evidence from the office of the concerned Regional Transport Office, to speak about the fact, as to whether the driver did possess licence or not, at the time of accident. The proof required and given credence by Courts is in the form of record and not mere oral evidence.
Madras High Court Cites 171 - Cited by 34 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Sunil Kumar S/O Sh.Mahender Singh vs Sh.Narain Singh (Driver) on 15 June, 2007

25. However, ld.counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2 had argued at length by citing the various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts that the owner of the vehicle i.e. respondent no.2 is not liable to make payment of compensation and also not liable under recovery right. He has relied upon judgments cited as "National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh & Ors., JT 2004 (1) SC 109; Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kokilaben Chandravadan and Others, 1987 ACJ 411; Narcinva V Kamat and another Vs. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins & others, 1985 ACJ 397 (SC); G Nagendra Devi and Others Vs. Y.Mosses and others, 2003 ACJ 221 (Madras High Court); Sohan Lal Passi Vs. P Sesh Reddy and Othes, 1996 ACJ 1044 (SC) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lehru and Others, II (2003) SLT 516 (SC)", wherein it was held that if it ultimately turns out that license was fake, Insurance Company would continue to remain liable unless they prove Page No.12 of 14 Suit No.248 of 2005 owner/insured was aware that license was fake and still permitted that person to drive his insured vehicle. In this case, the respondent no.3 has failed to prove that the driving license of respondent no.1 was fake to the knowledge of the respondent no.2 and therefore, insurance company cannot be escape the liability towards the petitioner . It can also not be given recovery right against respondent nos. 1 & 2 for the same reasons.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Ramakrishnan on 26 August, 2025

In addition to the dictum in Narchinva V. Kamat (Supra), the learned counsel for the claim petitioners rely on the dictum of the Apex Court in Rukmani v. New India Assurance Company, CDJ 1997 SC 1082 as well as the judgments of other High Courts, namely, G.Nagendra Devi v. Y.Mosses, CDJ 2001 MHC 742 ; National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nirabjit Kaur, CDJ 2008 DHC 1116 ; an unreported decision of the High Court of Rajasthan dated 03/10/2012 in Misc.Appeal.No.566/2006 (Mangu v. Surya Prakash) ; Bajaj M.A.C.A.No.767 of 2020 11 2025:KER:64385 Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Pune v. Poomani, CDJ 2024 MHC 2351 ; an unreported decision of the High Court of Karnataka dated 23/09/2024 in Misc.First Appeal No.5750 of 2016 (The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Ramakrishna M.).
Kerala High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Divisional Manager vs Jain-Ul-Arabhu on 2 November, 2018

11.The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent / owner of the vehicle contended that the first respondent entrusted the vehicle to his driver Manthiram, who had valid driving licence and without his knowledge, the said Manthiram allowed another person to drive the vehicle. In view of the same, the appellant as insurer is liable to pay compensation, as there is a valid insurance policy on the date of accident. The appellant Insurance Company did not let in any oral and documentary evidence to prove that the driver of the vehicle was not possessing the driving licence and in support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of G.Nagendra Devi and three others Vs. Y.Mosses and two others reported in 2001 (3) CTC 219.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - V M Velumani - Full Document

National Insurance Company Limited vs R.Thaniarasu on 16 March, 2023

10.Another judgment of this Court reported in 2001 (3) CTC 219 in the case of G.Nagendra Devi and 3 others Vs Y.Mosses and 2 others, is cited, wherein it is held that, "It is clear from the above decision that the burden is on the insurance company and it was failed to take proper and necessary steps to verify whether the offender has valid licence or not. In other words, the responsibility is on the insurance company to discharge its burden and prove that the driver of the vehicle in question was not having valid driving licence not only before the accident, but also at the time of the accident or he was debarred from holding a valid driving licence. In the light of the above legal position and in the absence of positive steps being taken by the insurance company, we are unable to accept the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance company from its liability. We hold that the second respondent - insurance 6 / 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.5 of 2020 company is liable to pay the award amount and the contrary view taken by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside."
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R Tharani - Full Document

National Insurance Company Limited vs R.Thaniarasu on 16 March, 2023

10.Another judgment of this Court reported in 2001 (3) CTC 219 in the case of G.Nagendra Devi and 3 others Vs Y.Mosses and 2 others, is cited, wherein it is held that, "It is clear from the above decision that the burden is on the insurance company and it was failed to take proper and necessary steps to verify whether the offender has valid licence or not. In other words, the responsibility is on the insurance company to discharge its burden and prove that the driver of the vehicle in question was not having valid driving licence not only before the accident, but also at the time of the accident or he was debarred from holding a valid driving licence. In the light of the above legal position and in the absence of positive steps being taken by the insurance company, we are unable to accept the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance company from its liability. We hold that the second respondent - insurance 6 / 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.5 of 2020 company is liable to pay the award amount and the contrary view taken by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside."
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R Tharani - Full Document

Jageshwar Prasad Singh & Anr vs M/S Tara Linkers Carrier Pvt.L on 19 July, 2010

Almost similar view has been taken by Madras High court in a case of G. Nagendra Devi and Others V. Y. Mosses and Others, 2003 ACJ 221, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that steps were taken to produce driving licence but neither the owner appeared to 4 produce the same so court below has rightly drawn adverse inference against the owner and exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability. But in face of the decision aforementioned, coupled with the provisions as contemplated in Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, relevant provisions reads as such:
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - A Chandra - Full Document

The New India Assurance Co vs Mohan on 6 January, 2010

17.Though, it has been stated in the petition, as well as in the evidence of PW1 that the deceased (Ganesan) was engaged in milk business and was earning between Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month, no documentary evidence has been furnished as proof, in support of this claim. As such, the Tribunal, following Judgements given in 2001(3) CTC 219, Chennai High Court, G.Nagendradevi and three others vs. Y.Moses and two others" which is a similar case, held that the deceased Ganesan's notional income could be taken as Rs.2,500/- per month.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - C S Karnan - Full Document
1