Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1039 (2.40 seconds)
Documents citing United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Lehru And Ors on 28 February, 2003

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rakesh Kumar & Ors. on 29 February, 2012

59. Since there was no willful breach of the condition of policy, in view of the law laid down in Lehru & Ors. (supra) and Swaran MAC APP 329/2010. Page 53 of 70 Singh (supra) the Insurance Company, therefore, cannot avoid liability. As I have already quoted earlier, the Claims Tribunal held that the first Appellant was not aware that the licence was fake. It also held that the Insurance Company had not proved on record that the owner was not aware that the driver did not hold a valid driving licence at the time of the accident.
Delhi High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 170 - G P Mittal - Full Document

- vs - on 29 August, 2003

22.The later Division Bench in National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Samiyathal reported in 2003 (I) L.W. 539 also followed the law laid down in Kumar Vs. National Insurance Co., Ltd., we, on our part, while agreeing with the two Division Bench Judgements of this court referred to supra and while following the decision of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Lehru and others, we hold that the Driver of the vehicle, owner of the vehicle and insurer of the vehicle are liable to pay the claimants in MCOP.No.213 of 1998, the sum of Rs.3,36,000/= with interest at 9% from the date of accident till date of realisation.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Velammal And Ors. vs P. Kanagu And Ors. on 29 August, 2003

22.The later Division Bench in National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Samiyathal reported in 2003 (I) L.W. 539 also followed the law laid down in Kumar Vs. National Insurance Co., Ltd., we, on our part, while agreeing with the two Division Bench Judgements of this court referred to supra and while following the decision of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Lehru and others, we hold that the Driver of the vehicle, owner of the vehicle and insurer of the vehicle are liable to pay the claimants in MCOP.No. 213 of 1998, the sum of Rs. 3,36,000/= with interest at 9% from the date of accident till date of realisation.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Opposite Party No.2/ vs Shakila Khatoon on 20 September, 2022

11. Recently, by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rishi Pal Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No.4919/2022 , considering the above legal propositions made in case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Lehru (supra) as also in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh & Ors., reported in (2003) 3 SCC 338, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Lehru (supra) has reiterated the same view as has been observed in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Lehru (supra), which reads thus:-
Jharkhand High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S N Pathak - Full Document

Sheela Rani vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.& Ors on 1 March, 2016

The insurance company would not then be absolved of liability. If it ultimately turns out that the licence was fake, the insurance company would continue to remain liable unless they prove that the owner/insured was aware or had noticed that the licence was fake and still permitted that person to drive. More importantly, even in such a case the insurance company would remain liable to the innocent third party, but it may be able to recover from the insured. This is the law which has been laid down in Skandia[(1987) 2 SCC 654] , Sohan Lal Passi [(1996) 5 SCC 21 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 871] and Kamla [(2001) 4 SCC 342 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 701] cases. We are in full agreement with the views expressed therein and see no reason to take a different view".
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 4 - R K Gauba - Full Document

Sukhbir Singh vs National Insurance Company Ltd. And ... on 6 September, 2006

The insurance company would not then be absolved of liability. If it ultimately turns out that the licence was fake, the insurance company would continue to remain liable unless they prove that the owner/insured was aware or had noticed that the licence was fake and still permitted that person to drive. More importantly, even in such a case the insurance company would remain liable to the innocent third party, but it may be able to recover from the insured. This is the law which has been laid down in Skandia, Sohan Lal Passi and Kamla cases. We are in full agreement with the views expressed therein and see no reason to take a different view.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Radhabai And Ors. vs H.K. Siddiqui And Ors. on 3 August, 2006

In view of the above, the matter would have to be decided on the anvil of the judgment of the Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh . However, the point would be taken up by discussing the liability of the insurer of the alleged dumper Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., its driver and owner. The counsel for Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Mrs. Amrit Ruprah has stated that the R.T.O. employee Yogendra Kumar Garg, witness No. 1, who was working as an Assistant Divisional Inspector in the R.T.O., Jhansi and had on record deposed that the licence of the driver Ramesh Kumar was fake since the number bearing the same registration contained a different photo that from the one that was filed as Exh. D2 and name of non-applicant Ramesh Kumar, son of Kalu was nowhere mentioned in the licence. Thus, it has been proved that it was a fake licence and hence the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation and the Tribunal had rightly exonerated the insurance company.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next