Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ram Rati And Ors. on 18 January, 2008

Smt. Kanta Sharma W/O Late Sh Anil Kumar vs Sh. Silesh S/O Sh. Mohan Singh on 12 April, 2012

28. Though the insurer has relied upon a notification issued by transport authority, this Tribunal is cognizant of the law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as 'National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Rati and Others', reported in 2008 ACJ 2758 wherein it has been held that mere use of vehicle by a person not authorised by permit being not the registered owner, can exempt the insurance company from liability. It was held as under:-
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Sampati Devi W/O Late Laxman Singh vs Sh. Deep Chand Tiwari on 5 February, 2009

27. Reliance was placed upon National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Rati and Ors.; MAC appeal decided by Hon'ble High Court reported in II (2008) ACC 538 in which case also deceased had been plying TSR, hit by bus and it was found that owner of TSR had handed its vehicle to an unauthorized person in clear violation of permit conditions. The permit was not in the name of the deceased TSR driver. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court that although this did not absolve the insurer from its liability to pay compensation to cover third party risk, reference was made to the settled legal position that insurer could raise defence as provided U/s 149(2) and since driver was having valid D/L, the Tribunal was held to have rightly given recovery right to the insurer. It was held that mere use of vehicle by person not authorized by permit cannot give right to the insurer to escape its liability altogether. In the present case also it is an admitted case that respondent no. 1 Deep Chand Tiwari was the registered owner of the TSR and it was also not in dispute that TSR was duly insured with the Insurance Company in the name of Deep Chand Tiwari. It was also not in dispute that TSR at the time of the accident was being driven by Binnami Singh without there being any transfer of permit in his name. It is also not in dispute that registered owner of the TSR i.e Deep Chand Tiwari had a valid permit for the said TSR. Merely because of the fact that Binnami the TSR driver at the relevant time was not holding a permit in his name cannot absolve the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation as far as third party risks are concerned.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

National Insurance Co Ltd vs Ompati & Ors on 6 October, 2014

By way of this order, I shall dispose of FAO No. 7630 of 2014 titled "National Insurance Company Limited vs. Ompati and others" and FAO No. 7691 of 2014 titled "National Insurance Company Limited vs. FAO No.7630 of 2014 -2- Ram Rati and others" as these have emerged out of common award dated 25.3.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar ( in short "the Tribunal") and involve identical questions of law and facts for adjudication.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - R Mittal - Full Document

Mrs. Prem Rani W/O Late Dayanand Arora vs Sh. Jawahar Mahto S/O Sh. Meghu Mahto on 9 September, 2010

16. The TSR at the time of the accident was being driven by R1. It Suit No. 74/08 5/7 has been submitted by the counsel for the Insurance Company that only the permit holder was authorized to drive it and in the event of death of permit holder his widow and minor children shall be allowed to employ an authorized driver with prior approval of STA. Copy of the notification has been proved as Ex.R3W2/A through the statement of Amit Kumar Singh AO of the Insurance Company. The counsel has also been relying upon in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Ram Rati & Ors. II (2008) ACC 538. This judgment will be of no help to the Insurance Company in the present case. Rather it has been laid down in Para 6 of the judgment that mere use of the vehicle by a person not authorized by the permit being not the registered owner, cannot give right to the Insurance Company to escape the liability under Section 149 (2) of the MV Act, when the use of a particular vehicle in itself is not in contravention with the permit conditions.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lalit Kumar vs Hemant Paswan on 28 September, 2010

Respondent/insurance has stated that since respondent no. 1 was not a permit holder, respondent no. 2 being the owner had no authority to emply respondent no. 1 to drive the offending vehicle. This being violation of permit condition insurer would not been liable to indemnify the claim. Respondent has relied on II(2008)ACC 538 National Insurance Co. Vs Ram Rati in support of his contention. The Hon'ble High Court has held in the said case that the insurance would be entitled to escape his liability if the violation of the condition as mentioned in section 149 (2) sub section a to d are established. It has further been held that "mere use of the vehicle by a person not authorized by the permit being not the registered owner, cannot given right to the insurance company to escape its liability under section 149 Suit no.:­214A/09 Page8/11 (2) of the M.V. Act when the use of a particular vehicle in itself is not in contrvention with the permit conditions".
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Brij Mohan S/O Sh. Girish Chand vs Sh. Kailash Chaudhary on 14 July, 2009

20. So far as the liability to pay the compensation is concerned, it is of the respondent no.1 and 2 being the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. The vehicle was duly insured as on the date of accident and therefore, insurance company has to first satisfy the awarded amount. The Ld. Counsel for insurance company has prayed for recovery rights in view of 'National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ram Rati and Ors. 2008 ACJ 2758'.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next