Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 327 (1.37 seconds)
Documents citing National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Rattani & Ors on 18 December, 2008

New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Heirs And Legal Representavies on 15 March, 2024

8. Since Satpal Singh case (supra) was overruled in Asha Rani's case (supra), the impugned judgment fail, as no benefit can be given to the claimants for loss owing to the accident, as laid down in the judgment of National Insurance Co. Ltd. VS. Rattani & Ors. (supra), the deceased were gratuitous passengers, hence, no liability can be laid down on the Page 16 of 18 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 05 20:59:03 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1571/2002 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/03/2024 undefined insurance company to pay any compensation amount.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - G Gopi - Full Document

Ram Kumar Awasthi And Another vs Smt. Vimla Rani Chaurasiya And Another on 23 May, 2013

(a) In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rattani reported in 2009 (I) TAC 420, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that all the persons traveling in a goods vehicle with their goods, cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be owners of goods. Similarly, in the instant accident, only Ata Ullah was traveling along with his polished rice bags as owner of goods and was thus, covered under the policy, but the other passengers who were traveling allegedly along with their goods, cannot be deemed to be traveling as owner of goods.
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - R Sharma - Full Document

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Thangaselvi on 2 September, 2016

In my considered view, the Judgments reported in I (2009) ACC 52 (SC) (National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Kaushalaya Devi and others), and 2009 (1) TN MAC 103 (SC) (National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Rattani and others) and 2012(1) TN MAC 89(DB), (Royal Subdaram Aliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., V. P.Ayyakannu) squarely apply to the facts of this case. The contention of the claimants that they travelled as load men and the representative/owner of the goods have not been established by them. The evidence would show that the deceased Thangaraj and the claimants have only travelled in the goods vehicle as unauthorized passengers.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - K Kalyanasundaram - Full Document

Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company ... vs Budda Raikwar on 4 January, 2024

7. As far as law laid down in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rattani and others (supra) is concerned, in that case ratio of the judgment is that members of the marriage party travelling in the truck allegedly transporting gifts received from bride party cannot fall into the category of representative of owner of the goods as all the members of the marriage party were not the owner of the goods. Facts of that case are also distinguishable and in the present Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 06-01-2024 14:04:28 21 case, it has come on record that injured claimants deceased were travelling along with their paddy, which they had received as labour charges. Thus, they being owner of the goods were entitled to travel in the vehile as the word used in Section 147(1)(b)(i) is 'carried' in the vehicle as owner of the goods or his authorised representative.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - V Agarwal - Full Document

Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company ... vs Haribai on 4 January, 2024

7. As far as law laid down in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rattani and others (supra) is concerned, in that case ratio of the judgment is that members of the marriage party travelling in the truck allegedly transporting gifts received from bride party cannot fall into the category of representative of owner of the goods as all the members of the marriage party were not the owner of the goods. Facts of that case are also distinguishable and in the present Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 06-01-2024 14:04:28 21 case, it has come on record that injured claimants deceased were travelling along with their paddy, which they had received as labour charges. Thus, they being owner of the goods were entitled to travel in the vehile as the word used in Section 147(1)(b)(i) is 'carried' in the vehicle as owner of the goods or his authorised representative.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - V Agarwal - Full Document

Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Saraswati Raikwar on 4 January, 2024

7. As far as law laid down in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rattani and others (supra) is concerned, in that case ratio of the judgment is that members of the marriage party travelling in the truck allegedly transporting gifts received from bride party cannot fall into the category of representative of owner of the goods as all the members of the marriage party were not the owner of the goods. Facts of that case are also distinguishable and in the present Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Signing time: 06-01-2024 14:04:28 21 case, it has come on record that injured claimants deceased were travelling along with their paddy, which they had received as labour charges. Thus, they being owner of the goods were entitled to travel in the vehile as the word used in Section 147(1)(b)(i) is 'carried' in the vehicle as owner of the goods or his authorised representative.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - V Agarwal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next