Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing The National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Krishnan on 15 March, 2013

The United Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sri. Goutam Ghosh on 9 February, 2017

We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the judgment of this Commission in Appeal Case No.FA-29/2014, wherein, this Commission discussed in details regarding the judgment of Krishnan (supra) and also considered the points raised by the Insurance Company in the instant appeal. According to us, this appeal is fully covered by the judgment of this Commission in FA-29/2014 and the District Forum did not commit any error in the impugned judgment while allowing the petition.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

The National Insurance Company Ltd vs Saroja on 8 December, 2020

15.From the judgment relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, it is seen that the judgments reported in 2013 (1) TNMAC 729 (National Insurance Company Limited vs. Krishnan) and 2017 (2) TNMAC 674 DB (Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited vs. R.Rekha and others) cited supra, were not brought to the notice of this Court. In view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court, if the owner of the vehicle pays additional premium for personal accident coverage, he can maintain the claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation as fixed in the policy in question.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - V M Velumani - Full Document

Judgment Reserved On Orders Pronounced ... vs S.Vani on 27 June, 2019

13(i) The learned counsel appearing for the claimant further contended that the claimant is entitled to the amount in addition to Rs.2,00,000/- towards pecuniary and non pecuniary damages and in support of his contention, relied on Para Nos.18 & 36 of the judgment reported in 2014 ACJ 1862 (National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Krishnan and another) which was also referred by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent (Para 36) wherein it has been held as follows -
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - V M Velumani - Full Document

The Branch Manager vs Kannan on 29 January, 2019

12.The issue whether the claimant is entitled to only Rs.1,00,000/- under personal accident coverage came up for consideration before this Court. This Court in the Judgment reported in 2013 (1) TN MAC 729 ( National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Krishnan), held that the Tribunal or Courts must award just compensation after referring to the judgment with regard to just compensation. This Court held that the claimant is entitled to more amount than Rs.1,00,000/- under personal accident coverage and held that the claimant is entitled to amount under different heads as awarded by Tribunal.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - V M Velumani - Full Document

Judgment Reserved On Orders Pronounced ... vs S.Vani on 27 June, 2019

13(i) The learned counsel appearing for the claimant further contended that the claimant is entitled to the amount in addition to Rs.2,00,000/- towards pecuniary and non pecuniary damages and in support of his contention, relied on Para Nos.18 & 36 of the judgment reported in 2014 ACJ 1862 (National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Krishnan and another) which was also referred by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent (Para 36) wherein it has been held as follows -
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - V M Velumani - Full Document

Murugaiyan vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 5 February, 2020

20. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant that once extra premium is paid for the injury or death of the owner of the vehicle, the amount cannot be restricted to Rs.2,00,000/- and relied on the Judgment of this Court reported in National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Krishnan and another, 2013 (1) TN MAC 729: 2013 (3) MWN 11/18 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A. No. 1357 of 2016 (Civil) 161: 2014 ACJ 1862 cited supra. The said case relates to the injuries sustained by the owner of the two wheeler, who paid extra premium for personal accident coverage. The Tribunal considering the materials in that case held that the claimant therein is entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,13,934/-, but restricted the same to Rs.1,00,000/- in view of the limit fixed. This Court held that the insured owner of the vehicle is entitled to compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss like medical expenses, pain & suffering etc. and held that the claimant is entitled to entire amount awarded by the Tribunal. The ratio in the said Judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.432 of 2012 is claiming compensation for the death of owner of the car while he was an occupant of the car. In such case, the compensation for the medical expenses and pain & suffering does not arise.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - V M Velumani - Full Document

The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance ... vs Vemavaram Sudheer Babu And 2 Others on 7 September, 2018

23. The respondent's counsel contends that the claimants cannot be both givers and the recipients. He contends that the claim petition cannot be maintained by the owner or the legal representative of the owner, as the owner is the insured of the offending vehicle and he cannot be treated as a third party. The operative portion of the decision of the Madras High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd.'s case (supra), held as follows:
Telangana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next