Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.84 seconds)
Documents citing Kanniappa Nadar vs Jayapandi And Others on 13 December, 1996

Divisional Manager, United India ... vs Dulasi Ammal And 5 Ors. on 12 June, 1997

39. Coming to the facts of the case in the earlier part of my order itself I have already narrated how the incident had taken place in all the four cases. The claimants have also examined witnesses to speak about the occurrence as well as how the deceased/injured travelled in a goods vehicle or which necessitated them to travel along with the goods in a goods vehicle. Apart from the specific pleadings, the claimants have established their case by let in oral evidence which, according to me, after perusal is meritable. In the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the insurance companies, the case pleaded by the claimants have to be accepted. In those circumstances, on the line of the conclusion reached by Raju, J., in the above referred cases, I am of the view that the insurance companies cannot wriggle out of their liability. Hence in the light of legal position referred above and uncontroverted facts available in all these cases, I am in entire agreement with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal.
Madras High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 8 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Divisional Manager, United India ... vs Dulasi Ammal And Ors. on 12 June, 1997

37. After the decision of Kanniappa Nadar v. Jayapandi and 10 others (1997) 1 1 W. 174, Raju, J. had an occasion to consider similar issue in C.M. As. Nos. 852 to 854 of 1987. The learned Judge has also considered various decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court including the decision of the Division Bench reported in (1997) 1 L.W. 174 cited supra. The conclusion the learned Judge which is very relevant for the disposal of the present case is extracted hereunder:
Madras High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

United India Insurance Company Ltd, ... vs A. Govindan And Another on 21 January, 2000

K. Govindarajan, J., after referring to the Division Bench decision in Kanniappa Nadar v. Jayapandi and 10 others, and after holding that the insurance company has not discharged its burden of establishing that the insured himself is guilty of committing breach of contract of insurance, held that the insurance company cannot absolve its liability from paying the compensation. The facts and the ultimate conclusion of the learned Judge is not helpful to the appellant's case and this also supports the stand of the respondents-claimants.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 10 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Goshen Stone Crushers vs Fathimuthu And Ors. on 13 August, 2001

The decision in Kanniappa Nadar v. Jayapandi , relates to the period under the old Act. In this decision it has been held that the driver of the vehicle allowed the owner of the goods to travel along with the goods and there is no evidence that the owner of the vehicle either authorised or permitted the owner of the goods to travel in the vehicle or the driver was authorised to carry the owner of the goods along with the goods.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Goshen Stones Crushers vs Mrs. Fathimuthu And Ors. on 13 August, 2001

He also relied upon the decision in Kanniappan Nadar v. Jayapandi , wherein it has been held that when the driver of the vehicle allowed the owner of goods to travel in vehicle along with goods and when there is no evidence that owner either authorised or permitted owner of goods to travel in vehicle or driver was authorised to carry owner of goods along with goods, the claimants were entitled to recover compensation from owner of vehicle and Insurance Company who are jointly and severally liable.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

The Thanjavur Taxi Drivers Industrial ... vs M. Vasantha And 7 Ors. on 30 September, 1997

8. Under these circumstances, all the judgments referred to above are helpful to the cause advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant in each of these appeals. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, no argument is advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant nor is there any cross objection at the instance of the claimants. However, Mr S. Shanmugavelayudham, learned counsel appearing for the claimants in these two claim petitions brings to my notice that the Tribunal had awarded interest only at 9% p.a. This is patently erroneous. The claimants in each of these cases are entitled to interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. Therefore I am inclined to accept the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant in each of these appeals. Accordingly the appeals are allowed. The judgment and decree dated 26.8.1987 in M.C.O.P. Nos. 9 of 1985 and 64 of 1985 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal District Judge, West Thanjavur at Thanjavur so far as the personal liability imposed on the third respondent in each of the claim petitions are set aside as well as the interest awarded at 9% p.a. Instead, the award passed in both the claim petitions shall carry interest at 12% from the date of petition till the date of realisation and it has to be satisfied by the second respondent in each of those claim petitions namely the Insurance Company as the insurer of the vehicle belonging to the third respondent in those proceedings. There will be no order as to costs in these appeals. Connected C.M.Ps. are dismissed.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1