Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Anjana Shyam And Ors. on 28 December, 1999

Nadeer M.T vs Rageev R on 23 November, 2005

9. It is also evident from the materials before us that in the awards passed in the other cases, the third respondent has not been given the right of recovery. It has also not filed appeals challenging the said awards. As a matter of fact, the other 11 claim petitions were settled out of court. Having regard to the fact that the insurer is liable to satisfy only five of the highest awards, we are of the opinion that this appeal can be disposed of by directing the insurer to satisfy this award as also four other highest awards in the claim petitions referred to above and recover only the balance amount from the appellant. In other words, the third respondent insurer will be entitled to recover only the sum of 40,250/- paid by it as compensation in O.P.(M.V.) Nos.222 of 1999, 223 of 1999, 224 of 1999, 226 of 1999, 228 of M.A.C.A.No.1904 of 2006 8 1999, 230 of 1999 and 231 of 1999, together with interest on the said amount at 6% per annum from 12.05.2000, the date on which the aforesaid sum was paid to the claimants, by recourse to the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramnath vs Prasanna Kumar Jain And Ors. on 4 April, 2001

8. Second phase of the question is overloading of the vehicle. On this question, it can be said that the occupants thereof were mostly small children who could not be left out when the purpose of journey was to attend the marriage. They could not be separated from the parents. Practically they are related to each other. This plea is not available to insurance company since the vehicle was not being used for the purpose other than indicated in the policy and it is to be taken as separate accident for each of the victims of the accident. [See National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam 2000 ACJ 1585 (HP) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sabeer Ali 2000 ACJ 839 (Kerala)]. For all these reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that insurance company (respondent No. 3) is liable, to pay the compensation in these cases and the finding of the Claims Tribunal exempting the insurance company from payment of compensation is set aside.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 5 - R Gupta - Full Document

Mani vs Joby John on 20 August, 2007

139) to the contrary, has not adverted to the verdict passed by the Apex Court, which is the law of the land by virtue of the sanctity and mandate under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, we respectfully cannot rely on the said verdict, as bound by the judgment of the Supreme Court). It is true that there were more number of persons in the cabin of the lorry, than the seating capacity. But even if more persons than the permitted capacity are carried in a transport vehicle, in the matter of awarding compensation, the position has been made clear by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam (2007 (3) KLT 993), holding that cases where the 'maximum compensation' payable have to be identified, based on the actual seating capacity and the said extent has to be satisfied by the Insurance Company. In the instant case, only one claim petition M.A.C.A.No.605/08 -8- was there and as such, this Court does not find it necessary to go into any further exercise with regard to the apportionment. However, in view of the violation of the statutory/policy condition, the Insurance Company is granted right of recovery from the insured after satisfying the liability in respect of the victim, from the 1st respondent.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jose vs M.K.Soman on 20 February, 2007

5. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Insurance Company has deposited a sum of 7,931/- in that case and since the Insurance Company has M.A.C.A.Nos.1019, 1155,1191 & 1340/11 -6- satisfied the entire amount in respect of the other three cases where amounts are more, it has to be held that the liability of the Insurance Company will stand discharged by virtue of such remittance in the other three cases and the amounts remitted have to be pooled/shared among the claimants concerned. Applying the dictum to the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the Insurance Company has already satisfied a sum of 22,925/- by way of principal amount and interest in respect of the sum of 17,055/- in OP(MV) No.807/2002. Similarly, in respect of O.P.(MV)No. 839/02 a total sum of 1,23,300/- has been paid by the Insurance Company as against the award amount of 91,730/- plus interest. In respect of OP(MV) No. 905/02, in order to satisfy the award amount, 7,050/- plus interest, a sum of 9,476/- has been satisfied. Similarly, in respect of the last case, i.e., OP(MV)No.913/2002, an amount of 7,931/- has been satisfied, as against the liability of 5,900/- plus interest. The learned counsel for the appellant/1st respondent submits that, pursuant to the steps taken by the Insurance Company, the liability in OP(MV) No.807/02 (subject M.A.C.A.Nos.1019, 1155,1191 & 1340/11 -7- matter of M.A.C.A.No.1019/11), OP(MV) No.905/02 (subject matter of M.A.C.A.No.1340/11) and OP (MV)No.913/02(subject matter of M.A.C.A.No.1155/11) have already been paid back to the Insurance Company and what remains is only in respect of OP(MV)No.839/02(subject matter of M.A.C.A.No.1191/11). By virtue of the question of law made clear by the Apex Court as per decision cited supra, the liability of the Insurance Company should stand confined to the higher three awards passed by the Tribunal in OP(MV)Nos.807/02, 839/02 and 905/02 and the Insurance Company can be absolved only in respect of the 4th one, i.e., the lowest one, in OP(MV) No.913/02. Since, it is stated that, the amount paid by the Insurance Company has already been recovered from the appellant/1st respondent in respect of OP(MV)No.807/2002 and 905/2002, (the highest one in OP(MV) No.839/2002 still remains to be paid back to the Insurance Company), there will be a direction to the respondent Insurance Company to return the sum of 22,925/- in respect of OP(MV) No.807/02 and 9,476/- in respect of OP(MV)No.905/02 to the appellant/1st respondent before the Tribunal. The amount as M.A.C.A.Nos.1019, 1155,1191 & 1340/11 -8- above shall be returned at the earliest, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1