Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (2.58 seconds)
Documents citing National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Geetha And Ors. on 25 December, 2003

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Venkataraman on 18 July, 2012

In National Insurance Company Limtied Vs. Geetha and others reported in 2006 ACJ 700, it is not specifically mentioned when the amount was paid for insurance policy. It only refers about the issuance of policy which is effective from 15.06.1998 at 10.00 AM Where as, the accident took place on 15.06.1998 at 5.30 PM. The Division Bench rightly relied upon Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act, 1938, and held that unless the Insurance Company accepts and issues policy, the person who paid the premium cannot come forward with a plea that the Insurance Company is having an obligation. Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act reads as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - N Kirubakaran - Full Document

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd vs Elumalai on 22 April, 2014

2. The claims tribunal, upon perusal of Ex.R1 dated 29.10.2009 driving licence of Selvam, driver of the van and Ex.R2, Registration certificate of the vehicle, found that the vehicle was intended to be used for commercial purpose, and that the driver did not posses the required licence and a badge to drive the commercial vehicle. From the testimony of RW1, Clerk of the RTO, the claims tribunal found that the driver did not obtain a necessary badge endorsement to drive a goods transport vehicle. Thus, by holding that owner of the van bearing Regn.No.TN 27 K 7841, insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, has violated the policy conditions and after considering the decisions of this Court in Susai Raj @ Anthuvan Susai Vs. Guruprasad and others [2013 (1) TNMAC 276], National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Geetha and Others [2012 (2) TNMAC 532 (Del.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

R.Vellaiswamy vs Chinnammal on 1 March, 2007

Various decisions referred to above clearly show that the policy is a contract and the parties are bound by the terms and conditions contained therein. The risk under the Insurance policy starts only from the date and time mentioned in the policy and not earlier. It is not open to the parties to go beyond the terms of the policy and claim that the insurance company should indemnify them even for the accidents that occurred prior to the commencement of policy.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

M/S.United India Insurance vs Tmt.Malar Alias Malarkodi on 22 December, 2006

The said judgments of the Supreme Court have been followed by the Division Bench of Madras High Court in (National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Geetha and others) reported in 2006 ACJ 700. In the said case, though premium was paid in the forum of a cheque on 12.6.1998 itself, a policy operative from 10.00 a.m. on 15.6.1998 had been issued by the Insurance Company. Rejecting the contention of the respondents therein, in the said judgment, the Division Bench made a distinction between payment of premium for renewal of policy before the expiry of the previous policy and payment of premium after the expiry of the previous policy and came to a conclusion that payment of premium after the expiry of the previous policy should be considered only as a fresh offer for getting a fresh policy and not a renewal of the earlier policy.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - P R Shivakumar - Full Document
1