Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Gonti Eliza David And Ors. on 26 October, 1983

Orissa State Road Transport ... vs Shankar Sahu on 1 November, 1989

16. The observations made in a Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gonti Eliza David 1984 ACJ 8 (Bombay) : 1984 (1) ACC 240, also give support to the above view to some extent. It is no doubt true that if the driver had suffered the injury due to his rash and negligent driving, a claim under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act could not have been Maintainable for the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (Sic. volenti non fit injuria), as a person cannot claim advantage for his own wrong.
Orissa High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Armoor ... vs Kore Laxmi And Ors. on 5 December, 2001

This also is of no assistance to the claimant-respondent the reason being that as explained above, this is not a case giving rise to claim for compensation both under the MV Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act, the case is one on the other hand where the claim arising if any may be under the Workmen's Compensation Act but not under the MV Act. The claimant-respondent has not in the present proceeded to allege or establish as stated above, any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the owner of the truck. The observations contained in a recent decision of the Bombay High Court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gonti Eliza David, 1984 ACJ 8 Bombay, elucidate the difference between taking recourse to the provisions under either of the two acts in this connection.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 19 - Cited by 7 - N V Ramana - Full Document

Arun Kumar Rastogi And Anr. vs Chandra Kumari And Anr. on 28 July, 1986

9. This also is of no assistance to the claimant-respondent, the reason being that, as explained above, this is not a case giving rise to a claim for compensation both under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act ; the case is one, on the other hand, where the claim arising, if any, may be under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but not under the Motor Vehicles Act. The claimant-respondent has not in the present proceeded to allege or establish, as stated above, any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the owners of the truck. The observations contained in a recent decision of the Bombay High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gonti Eliza David [1986] 59 Comp Cas 745, at page 749, elucidate the difference between taking recourse to the provisions under either of the two Acts in this connection :
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Md. Akbar Ali And Anr. on 17 November, 2003

Mr. Banik, learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand relied on the judgment in the case of Ramji Hiralal Porte v. Premabai Pattel, reported in 1998 (2) A.J.R. 492; Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jashoda Bala Ghanta reported in 1991 A.C.J. 349; Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dhanno, reported in 1987 A.C.J. 759; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Anokhi Lal reported in II (1992) A.C.C. 68 : 1993 A.C.J. 216; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angammal ; Kishori v. Gulabkhan reported in 1988 A.C.J. 860, K.K. Rain v. Smt. Masroor Anwar ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gonti Eliza David, reported in I (1984) A.C.C. 240 : 1984 A.C.J. 8; Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Sundar Dubey reported in 1982 A.C.J. 365; Mandulova Satyanarayan v. Bodiredoy Likeshwari, ; and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Urmila Devi reported in 2003(2) T.A.C. 31.
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Surinder Kumar Jain vs Smt. Sukh Dai And Ors. on 24 October, 1985

6. Later, a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gondi Eliza David [1984] ACJ 8; [1986] 59 Comp Cas 745 (Bom), also held to the same effect, namely, that the words " the liability, if any, arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 " occurring in Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act, implied that the insurer was liable for common law damages also and not only in respect of the liabilities arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 Next