Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing United India Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Tilak Ram And Ors. on 19 April, 1985

V.S. Ramani vs S.R. Vasudevan And Anr. on 25 August, 1987

In the decision reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Ram 1985 A.C.J. 481, which was followed in the previous decision viz., New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandar Madhav Tambe 1986 A.C.J. 874, Sections 2(5-A), 3(1) and 96(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the distinction between 'Driving Licence' and 'Duly Licenced' and whether a person holding a learner's driving permit is duly licenced were considered by the Himachal Pradesh High Court and it was held that the expression 'duly licenced' will cover a person who holds a 'driving licence' or a learner's driving permit since both of them are issued in accordance with law by the Licensing Authority and duly authorise a person who holds either to drive a motor vehicle in a public place subject to conditions attached to each. The Himachal Pradesh High Court has further observed in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of its judgment as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

New India Assurance Company Limited vs Mandar Madhav Tambe And Ors. on 5 February, 1986

7. This debated question, therefore, will have to be resolved by firstly finding out as to what is the contemplation of the term'duly licensed as employed by Section 96(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. The decision available in the Tilak Rant's case (supra), rendered by the Himachal Pradesh High Court, takes the view that the terra 'duly licensed' is not to be limited to any particular category of licence and would take in any licence of the type which enables one to drive, including the one granted as learner's licence.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Masabi on 20 August, 1990

The decisions of Allahabad High Court in ISHWAR DEVI v. REOTI RAMAN AND ANR. 1978 ACJ 340 Himachal Pradesh High Court in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. TILAK RAM AND ORS. 1985 ACJ 481 Gujarat High Court in CHANCHALBEN AND ORS. v. SHAILESH KUMAR PANDURAO THAKORE AND ORS. 1974 ACJ 393, Punjab and Haryana High Court in GURUMUKH SINGH AND ANR. v. AJMER KAUR AND ORS. 1986(1) ACJ 386, and Bombay High Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCY CO. LTD. v. MANDAR MADHAV TAMBE AND ORS 1986(2) ACJ 874. have been referred to In this decision of this Court, mentioned already.
Karnataka High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Folix Correa And Ors. on 23 November, 1988

Reliance was also placed on the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Tilak Ram 1985 ACJ 481 in which the Himachal Pradesh High Court took the view that the term 'duly licensed' is not to be limited, to any particular category of licences and would take in any licence of the type which enables one to drive, including the one granted as learner's licence. There is nothing like a permanent driving licence contemplated under the Act and it is only for a specific term. It contemplates a licence for a constituted period. There is no category contemplated of the learner's or non-learner's licence. It is only by reason of the rules that the learner's licence is contemplated. But the authority to grant such a licence is referable to the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. Therefore they concluded that for all purposes the learner's licence is a periodic licence which permits the driver subject to special conditions to drive a motor vehicle. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Bombay High Court which has considered at length the other decisions referred to above. We are thus inclined to hold that the term 'duly licensed' would include the holder of a learner's licence as well. No good reason exists to limit the phrase to the holder of a regular licence. At paras-14 and 15 referring to a similar clause as in the instant case the learned Judges observed as follows:
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - N Venkatachala - Full Document

M/S. United India Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Sharada Adyanathaya And Others on 26 June, 1997

"14. From the aforesaid it is clear that what was obtained by respondent 3 from the authorities under the Act was not a licence within the meaning of Section 2(5-A) of the said Act. He had obtained a learner's licence which allowed him to be on the road subject to his fulfilling the conditions contained therein. One of the important conditions was that if he was driving a motor vehicle then there must be besides him in the vehicle as an instructor a person duly licensed to drive the vehicle and sitting in such a position as to be able readily to stop the vehicle". It is clear from this that two learners by themselves cannot be in one car which is being driven by one of them. If the learned having a learner's licence under the rules is to drive a car then he must have sitting besides him a person who is duly licenced. This clearly shows that a "driving licence" as defined in the Act is different from a learner's licence issued under Rule 96. In other words, a person would be regarded as being duly licenced only if he has obtained a licence under Chapter II of the Motor Vehicles Act and a person who has obtained a temporary licence which enables him to learn driving cannot be regarded as having been duly licenced. The decision of the Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v Tilak Ram, to the extent to which he has taken a contrary view must be held to have been incorrectly decided".
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - P Krishnamoorthy - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Felix Correa on 23 November, 1988

Reliance was also placed on the case of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., v. TILAK RAM 1985 ACJ 481 in which the Himachal Pradesh High Court took the view that the term 'duly licensed' is not to be limited to any particular category of licenses and would take in any licence of the type which enables one to drive, including the one granted as Learner's Licence. There is nothing like a permanent driving licence contemplated under the Act and it is only for a specific term. It contemplates a licence for a constituted period. There is no category contemplated of the Learner's or non-Learner's Licence. It is only by reason of the Rules that the Learner's Licence is contemplated. But the authority to grant such a licence is referable to the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. Therefore they concluded that for all purposes the Learner's Licence is a periodic licence which permits the driver subject to special conditions to drive a motor vehicle. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Bombay High Court which has considered at length the other decisions referred to above. We are thus inclined to hold that the term 'duly licensed' would include the holder of a Learner's Licence as well. No good reason exists to limit the phrase to the holder of a regular licence. At paras-14 and 15 referring to a similar clause as in the instant case the learned Judges observed as follows:-
Karnataka High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Madras vs A. Babu And Others on 9 January, 1990

The same view was reiterated in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Ram, and Gurmukh Singh v. Ajmer Kaur. 1986 Acc CJ 983 (DB) (Punj & Har). It is also to be noted that a condition mentioned in the policy is to the effect that a driver is a person who holds a valid driving licence at the time of the accident or had held a permanent driving licence (other than a learner's licence) and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. The learned Counsel lor the appellant argued that the person holding learner's licence would not be entitled to drive the vehicle. As already observed, such a condition would run counter to the provisions of S. 96(2). It would not be enforceble nor on its basis it would be possible for the insurance company to avoid its liability to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. It has been repeatedly held by various High Courts and Supreme Court (sic) and the Insurance Company is entitled to take defences available only under S. 96(2)(b)(ii). If we were to go by the terms of S. 96(2)(b)(ii) of the Act, the exclusion could be of the persons who had been disqualified, as is mentioned therein. Further the terms of the policy in this regard were to be interpreted in the light of the purposes of the statute, which made a provision lor indemnifying cases involving third parties in accidents and for the satisfaction of the claims arising therefrom, in favour of the party affected rather than to absolve the insurance company of indemnity.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Mandar Madhav Tambe & Ors on 14 December, 1995

From the aforesaid it is clear that what was obtained by respondent No.3 from the authorities under the Act was not a licence within the meaning of Section 2(5A) of the said Act. He had obtained a learner's licence allowed him to be on the road subject to his fulfilling the conditions contained therein. One of the important conditions was that if he was driving a motor vehicle then there must be besides him in the vehicle as an instructor a person duly licenced to drive the vehicle and sitting insuch a position as to be able readily to stop the vehicle." It is clear from this that two learners by themselves cannot be in one car which is which is being driven by one of them. If the learner having a learner's licence under the rules is to drive a car then he must have sitting besides in a person who is duly licensed. This clearly shows that a "driving licence" as defined in the Act is different from a learner's licence issued under Rule 96. In other words, a person would be regarded as being duly licensed only if he has obtained a licence under Chapter II of the Motor Vehicles Act and a person who has obtained a temporary licence which enables him to leant driving cannot be regarded as having been duly licensed. The decision of the single judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in United India insurance Company's case (supra) to which he hes taken a contrary view must be held to have been incorrectly decided.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 110 - S P Bharucha - Full Document
1   2 Next