Orissa State Road Transport ... vs Shankar Sahu on 1 November, 1989
Co. Ltd. v. Ram Sunder Dubey 1982 ACJ 365 (Allahabad). I, therefore, deem it appropriate to give my reasons for taking the contrary view.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.95 seconds)Documents citing
Oriental Fire & General Insurance ... vs Ram Sunder Dubey And Ors. on 17 December, 1981
Ramji Porte And Ors. vs Premabai Patel And Ors. on 9 January, 1998
12. A Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in case of, Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Sunder Dubey (supra) observed in para 15 thus:
Mohammad Arshad vs Naimuddin Nasimuddin And Anr. on 13 September, 1989
Co. Ltd. v. Ram Sunder Dubey 1982 ACJ 365 (Allahabad).
Sukhwinder Kaur And Ors. vs The Dabwali Transport Company Private ... on 4 February, 2008
And Anr. v. Ram Sunder Dubey and Ors. 1982 ACJ 365 and M/s. Kanoria Overseas Corporation v. Damayanti Vyas and Ors. 1982 ACJ 222 , it has been categorically laid down that once compensation under the Workman Compensation Act is awarded, the petition under Section 110 (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable. The claimants can choose one method of compensation. Admittedly, an amount of Rs. 46,475/-has been received by the claimants.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Gonti Eliza David And Ors. on 26 October, 1983
On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the opponents placed reliance on Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Ram Sunder Dubey and Ors. A.I.R. 1982 Allahabad 193, which is a judgment of a Division Bench to traverse the argument.
Smt. Kalawati vs Balwant Singh And Anr. on 19 November, 1984
In the case of Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. v. Ram Sundar Dubey AIR 1982 All 198 a Division Bench of this Court interpreting Section 110-AA of the M. V. Act observed that the said provision gives an option to the claimant either to seek compensation under the MV Act or under the Compensation Act and there is a prohibition to seek compensation from both.
Noorulla vs P.K. Prabhakar And Another on 22 March, 1999
(c) Similar is the view taken by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, supra. In the said case, at paragraph 5, it is observed as follows:
Mohammad Arshad vs Naimuddin Nasimuddin And Anr. on 13 September, 1989
Co. Ltd. v. Ram Sunder Dubey 1982 ACJ 365 (Allahabad).
M/S. Cholamandalam General Insurance ... vs Mr. K.Kumar on 7 May, 2020
10.Hence, the impleading of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. by the victims is
in order. Cholamandalam Insurance Co. has not examined the driver of the lorry that
has been insured by it. Necessarily, therefore, adverse inference shall be drawn
against the said driver. The principle of law for instance in Oriental Fire and General
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ram Sunder Dubey reported in AIR 1982 All 198 is good law
http://www.judis.nic.in
5/8
6 CMA Sr Nos. 38186 /2019, 38187/2019
CMA Sr 38189 /2019,CMA Sr 38188 /2019
& CMA Sr 38185/2019
Pan India. The tribunal cannot be faulted for its finding on negligence. In fact,
Cholamandalam Insurance Co. is not prejudiced at all, since the Tribunal has
apportioned only 50% liability on them. This has been done to avoid multiplicity of
proceeding to avoid inter se liability. Thus, the finding on negligence in the common
award, is factually and legally unexceptionable. Cholamandalam Insurance Co. cannot
dispute the 50% liability imposed on them, in a case of composite negligence, and
where the lorry driver did not present himself in the witness box. Hence, for these
reasons, there is no merit in any of the five appeals filed by the insurer. They deserve
to be dismissed and accordingly, are hereby dismissed.
M/S. Cholamandalam General Insurance ... vs Mr. K.Kumar on 7 May, 2020
10.Hence, the impleading of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. by the victims is
in order. Cholamandalam Insurance Co. has not examined the driver of the lorry that
has been insured by it. Necessarily, therefore, adverse inference shall be drawn against
the said driver. The principle of law for instance in Oriental Fire and General
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ram Sunder Dubey reported in AIR 1982 All 198 is good law
http://www.judis.nic.in
5/8
6 CMA Sr Nos. 38186 /2019, 38187/2019
CMA Sr 38189 /2019,CMA Sr 38188 /2019
& CMA Sr 38185/2019
Pan India. The tribunal cannot be faulted for its finding on negligence. In fact,
Cholamandalam Insurance Co. is not prejudiced at all, since the Tribunal has
apportioned only 50% liability on them. This has been done to avoid multiplicity of
proceeding to avoid inter se liability. Thus, the finding on negligence in the common
award, is factually and legally unexceptionable. Cholamandalam Insurance Co. cannot
dispute the 50% liability imposed on them, in a case of composite negligence, and
where the lorry driver did not present himself in the witness box. Hence, for these
reasons, there is no merit in any of the five appeals filed by the insurer. They deserve
to be dismissed and accordingly, are hereby dismissed.