Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 108 (1.36 seconds)
Documents citing National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Savitri Devi And Ors on 5 January, 2004

United India Insurance Companylimited vs Bhanubhai Narsinhbhai on 4 February, 2013

In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. SAVITRI DEVI AND OTHERS reported in 2012 (4) SCALE 111, the appeals are allowed. It is declared that the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. However, it is clarified that if any amount has already been paid to the claimants either pursuant to the permission to withdraw a portion of the amount deposited or permission to withdraw interest arising out of the fixed deposits, the same shall not be recovered from the claimants. However, the amount lying in the Fixed Deposit, along with accrued interest, if any, is ordered to be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company. If any amount deposited by the appellant pursuant to the order passed by this court pursuant to the imposed condition of stay, is lying with the Registrar of this Court, the same is also directed to be forthwith transmitted to the Tribunal and such amount shall also be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

National Insurance Company, Regional ... vs Virsinhbhai Devabhai Bajaniya on 7 March, 2025

In the light of the aforesaid judgments, we have no doubt in our minds that the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 28-7-2005 [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Savitri Devi, FAO No. 143 of 2000, decided on 28-7-2005 (HP)] cannot be sustained. The same is hereby set aside and quashed. No liability can be fastened on the appellant Insurance Company. The appeals of the appellant Insurance Company are allowed to this extent."
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Narmada Prasad Vishwakarma And Ors. vs Sureshchand And Ors. on 15 December, 2006

In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Savitri , on the death of truck driver during course of his employment in an accident between a truck and jeep a claim petition was filed under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal found that truck driver was negligent in causing the accident and held owner and insurance company of truck liable for compensation. An appeal was filed by the insurance company on the ground that when deceased himself was negligent, insurance company cannot be held liable and the claimant should have preferred their claim under Workmen's Compensation Act and it is held that assuming the finding of the Tribunal to be correct that accident had been caused due to negligence of truck driver who died in accident, liability of insurance company and owner of truck is not lessened because of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - P K Jaiswal - Full Document

United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Minor Mahesh Kanubhai & 2 on 7 April, 2014

53. At this juncture, reference may be made to the decision of this court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lilaben (supra) wherein a co-ordinate bench of this court after referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Savitri Devi, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jyotibala Ghanshyam Joshi, 2012 (2) GLR 1681, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, Deddappa v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., S. Iyyapan v. M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma (supra) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudhakaran K.V., AIR 2008 SC 2729, has held that in the case before it, the victim not being a third party, the insurance company has no liability at all as pointed out in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudhakaran K.V. (supra).
Gujarat High Court Cites 102 - Cited by 8 - H Devani - Full Document

United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Babubhai Lallubhai Vala on 22 June, 2022

Thereafter, learned advocate Mr. Shelat has placed reliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Savitri Devi (supra) and has submitted that the Court has considered this aspect where it is admitted position that passengers are travelling in the goods vehicle, which are more in number by way of marriage party and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of that case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has found that the direction given for "Pay and Recover" is not proper in the present case and nothing is not found from the record to justify the present case. Further, if we peruse the insurance policy, which is issued by the United India Insurance Corporation Ltd. for the period from 03.08.1999 to 02.08.2000, whereby the premium is paid of Rs.2,779/- towards 'Liability to Public Risk' and there is additional amount in the premium under IMT-13, IMT-14 and IMT-17, which pertains to legal liability to non- fare paying passengers and the premium is also paid under IMT-
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

National Insurance Com vs Badri Lal And Ors on 27 April, 2022

Bare perusal of the findings recorded by the Tribunal while deciding issue No.4, even the Tribunal came to the conclusion that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the recovery right should have been given to the Insurance Company but while passing the final award in the operative portion, no such recovery rights have been given to the Insurance Company. Since the issue involved in this matter is no more res-integra as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Savitri Devi (supra) has already decided this issue which reads as under:-
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A K Dhand - Full Document

Madan Laljat vs Smt Munni Devi And Ors on 29 April, 2022

Insurance Company has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Savitri Devi and Ors. reported in 2013 (11) SC 554. Lastly, he argued that the findings recorded by the (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 08:19:53 PM) (3 of 5) [CMA-5030/2008] Tribunal while deciding issue No.3 do not suffer from any infirmity which warrants interference of this court.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A K Dhand - Full Document

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd vs Sikander (2023:Rj-Jd:26222) on 18 August, 2023

"8. After having gone through the award of the Claims Tribunal and the judgment and order [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Savitri Devi, FAO No. 143 of 2000, decided on 28-7-2005 (HP)] passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, we are not able to understand as to how it has been found that the appellant Insurance Company can still be held liable to pay the amount of compensation as there has been a categorical finding by both the courts recording that the vehicle in question was insured only as "goods carrying vehicle". The custom of carrying barat in the village on the said truck will not be sufficient to hold the appellant Insurance Company liable to pay the amount of compensation. Admittedly, the appellant Insurance Company would not know unless the accident takes place as to for what purpose the vehicle in question was being used. The terms and conditions of the insurance policy are very clear and categorical and it creates a specific bar on carrying of any passengers, except the employees other than the driver, not exceeding six (6) in number, who should also come under the purview of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - M G Vyas - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next