Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Giriraj vs Vinit Kohli & Anr (United India ... on 23 September, 2019

Basanta vs . Anil & Ors. on 22 January, 2020

27. LIABILITY As already discussed above, R-3/Insurance Co. has taken a plea that its liability to pay compensation in the present case was as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy issued by them in respect of the offending vehicle. It has been argued that the offending vehicle was being not driven by R-1 under a valid DL. As already discussed above, the claim of R-1 was that he was only working as a helper and was not employed as a driver on offending vehicle at the time of accident, but this claim of R-1 & R-2 has already been rejected by this tribunal on appreciation of evidence led on record and it also stands admitted by the witnesses produced by the respondents that R-1 was not holding DL at the time of accident authorizing him to drive the above offending vehicle. However, still the argument being made by Ld. Counsel for R-3 for their exoneration in the present case due to above is held not acceptable and in view of the law laid by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Giriraj Vs. Viniti Kohli & Anr. MACA No.639/19 decided on 23.09.2019, R-3/Insurance Company is only held entitled to a right of recovery of the award amount from R-2, i.e. owner of the offending vehicle, as per the contract of insurance executed between them.
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Afsar Ali vs . Pritam Singh & Ors. on 23 December, 2020

Thus, it can be said that on the basis of above, R-1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident to drive the offending truck and hence, the terms and conditions of insurance policy issued in respect of said vehicle stood violated and R-3/Insurance company has been able to prove on record that it has a statutory defence in terms of Section 149 of the MV Act to avoid their liability to pay compensation. However, still in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in case Giriraj Vs. Viniti Kohli & Anr., MACA No. 639/19, decided on 23.09.2019, R-3/Insurance company is not entitled to a complete exoneration from its liability and it is only held entitled to a right of recovery of the award amount from R-2 i.e. owner of the offending vehicle as per the contract of insurance executed between them.
Delhi District Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bishni Devi Bhatt & Ors. vs . Momeen & Ors. on 8 September, 2021

45. It is the case of respondent no. 3 that the driving license of the respondent no. 1 was fake and therefore, there was breach of the applicable policy terms and conditions and it was not liable to pay any amount. The respondents no. 1 and 2 never stepped into the witness box to establish a claim regarding the validity and issuance of driving license to respondent no. 1 by the respective transport authority, Kanpur, U.P. On the contrary, the respondent no. 3 produced one Sh. Siddharth Jaiswal who exhibited a notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC seeking the original driving license, permit to enter Delhi etc. He deposed that no document was ever produced pursuant to notice. Further he relied upon the report/letter dated 21.09.2015 (Ex. R3W1/A) which is part of DAR and filed by the IO. The said document reports that the driving license no. M96110/UP was never issued by the Licensing Authority, Kanpur as appears from the driving license seized by the IO. Therefore, it is held that the respondent no. 1 was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Giriraj Vs. Viniti Kohli & Anr., MACA No. 639/19, decided on 23.09.2019, R-3/Insurance Company is only held entitled to a right of recovery of the awarded amount from R-2, i.e. owner of the offending vehicle, as per the contract of insurance executed between MACP No. 449/16 Page no.18 of 24 them. Therefore, R-3 is first liable to deposit the awarded amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR either by way of crossed cheques/DDs in name of the petitioners or by way of deposit in any e-form in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manish Singh vs . Shankar & Ors. on 26 November, 2021

In these circumstances, it is held that the R1 was not holding a valid driving licence and there was breach of terms and conditions of insurance and therefore, in view of decision in Giriraj Vs. Viniti Kohli & Anr. MACA No.639/19 decided on 23.09.2019, the insurance Company is held entitled MACP No. 178/16 Page 13 of 19 to a right of recovery of the awarded amount from R­2, i.e. owner of the offending vehicle, as per the contract of insurance executed between them. Therefore, R­3 is first liable to deposit the awarded amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR either by way of crossed cheques/DDs in name of the petitioners or by way of deposit in any e­form in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mal Singh vs . Himanshu Pratap & Ors. on 11 November, 2021

31. Therefore, it is held that the respondent no. 1 was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Giriraj Vs. Viniti Kohli & Anr., MACA No. 639/19, decided on 23.09.2019, R-3/Insurance Company is only held entitled to a right of recovery of the awarded amount from R-2, i.e. owner of the offending vehicle, as per the contract of insurance DAR No. 1099/17 Page no.12 of 17 executed between them. Therefore, R-3 is first liable to deposit the awarded amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR either by way of crossed cheques/DDs in name of the petitioners or by way of deposit in any e-form in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gurucharan Dass vs . Ajeet Kumar & Ors on 5 April, 2022

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Giriraj Vs. Viniti Kohli & Anr., MACA No. 639/19, decided on 23.09.2019, R­3/Insurance Company is only held entitled to a right of recovery of the awarded amount from R­2, i.e. owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, R­3 is first liable to deposit the MACP No. 253/16 Page 17 of 25 awarded amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of DAR either by way of crossed cheque/DD in name of the petitioner or by way of deposit in any e­form in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anila Mathew vs . Deepak Kumar & Ors. on 11 January, 2022

In view of the law laid down by DAR No. 168/17 Page no.19 of 27 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Giriraj Vs. Viniti Kohli & Anr., MACA No. 639/19, decided on 23.09.2019, R­3/Insurance Company is only held entitled to a right of recovery of the awarded amount from R­2, i.e. owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, R­3 is first liable to deposit the awarded amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of DAR either by way of crossed cheque/DD in name of the petitioner or by way of deposit in any e­ form in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today.
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tribhuwan Ram vs . Rupesh Kumar on 14 November, 2022

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Giriraj Vs. Viniti Kohli & Anr., MACA No. 639/19, decided on 23.09.2019, R-3/Insurance Company is held entitled to a right of recovery of the awarded amount from R-2, i.e. owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, R-3 is first liable to deposit the awarded amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR either by way of crossed cheque/DD in name of the petitioner or by way of deposit in any e-form in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prem Chand vs . Rupesh Kumar Pandit & Ors. on 14 November, 2022

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Giriraj Vs. Viniti Kohli & Anr., MACA No. 639/19, decided on 23.09.2019, R-3/Insurance Company is held entitled to a right of recovery of the awarded amount from R-2, i.e. owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, R-3 is first liable to deposit the awarded amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court Branch, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR either by way of crossed MACP No. 118/16 & DAR No. 411/15 Page 11 of 18 cheque/DD in name of the petitioner or by way of deposit in any e-form in bank account being maintained in the above said bank in name of this tribunal within 30 days from today, failing which it will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Shyoraj Kali (Wife Of Deceased) vs . on 29 May, 2023

36. In view of foregoing discussions, it is established on record that the respondent no. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the relevant time of accident. Hence, in the case of Giriraj Vs. Viniti Kohli & Anr. MACA No.639/19 decided on 23.09.2019, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court while relying upon the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shamanna & Anr. Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2018) 9 SCC 650, which in turn appreciate the law laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its previous judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that even in case of no DL resulting in breach of conditions of insurance policy, 'principal of pay and recover' is to be applied and Insurance Co. is require to first pay the awarded amount and then to recover it from owner/driver. The Hon'ble High Court in this case had set aside the findings of a Claim Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Co. from payment of compensation on the ground of no availability of valid DL by driver of the offending vehicle and has thus held it liable to first pay the award amount to the claimant.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next