Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 253 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing Deddappa & Ors vs The Branch Manager, National Insurance ... on 12 December, 2007

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

9.2 Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Deddappa & Ors. v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2008 (3) G.L.H. 168, which was a case wherein the insurance company had taken a plea that although the vehicle in question was insured by the owner for the relevant period, but the cheque issued having been dishonoured, the policy was cancelled and thus, it was not liable therefor. The Supreme Court held that there is no doubt that beneficial legislations should have liberal construction with a view to implementing the legislative intent but where such beneficial legislation has a scheme of its own, there is no Page 30 of 114 C/FA/710/2007 JUDGMENT warrant for the court to travel beyond the scheme and extend the scope of the statute on the pretext of extending the statutory benefit to those who are not covered by the scheme. Mr. Nanavati submitted that the gratuitous passengers in any vehicle, including a goods carriage, are not statutorily covered under section 147(3) of the Act and as such, there is no warrant for the court to travel beyond the scheme and extend the statute on the pretext of extending the statutory benefit to gratuitous passengers who are not covered by the scheme.
Gujarat High Court Cites 102 - Cited by 8 - H Devani - Full Document

National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Bimlaben Wd/O Shankar Chunilalpandit & ... on 1 October, 2015

In  fact  this  decision  of   Supreme  Court  in  case   of  Deddappa   and   others   v.   Branch   Manager,  National Insurance   Co. Ltd.  (supra),   was considered  in  later   judgement   in   case   of  United   India   Insurance  Page 10 of 12 HC-NIC Page 10 of 12 Created On Tue Oct 06 01:25:53 IST 2015 C/FA/6889/1999 JUDGMENT Company   Limited   v.   Laxmamma  (supra)     and  distinguished on facts.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A Kureshi - Full Document

Isthikar Aalam vs G Sathish Reddy on 22 August, 2024

In this SCCH 15 31 MVC No.5028/2017 case, the evidence of RW.1 as well as the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.R4 clearly shows that there is no sufficient balance in the Account of the Respondent No.1 in respect of the premium amount towards the policy. Moreover, the policy i.e., Ex.R1 also clearly shows the period from 16.58 on 27.06.2017 till midnight of 26.06.2018. The alleged accident has taken place on 27.06.2017 at about 1.20 p.m. Hence, it is crystal clear that as on the date and time of the accident the policy is not in force in respect of the offending bus. Therefore, the above stated decisions not applicable to the present case in hand and as per the detailed discussions made above this Tribunal is of the opinion that the Respondent No.1 is liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner. On the other hand, the Respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioner. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 is "Partly in the Affirmative".
Bangalore District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The National Insurance Company Ltd., vs Baba Sharaduddin , Sharfuddin And ... on 24 January, 2024

19. The learned counsel for the appellant - claimant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Deddappa and Others v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited (cited supra), wherein on similar facts, when the cheque issued by the owner of the vehicle was dishonored with the remarks "funds insufficient" and the insurer cancelled the policy of insurance and the said information was communicated to the owner of the vehicle and an intimation was also given to the concerned RTO and the accident occurred was much after communication of the cancellation of the policy, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
Telangana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - G R Rani - Full Document

Mahender Singh & Others vs Usha Rani & Others on 9 April, 2010

However, this contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.4- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. again cannot be accepted. Firstly, the cancellation of the policy was not proved for want of intimation to the Regional Transport Authority as envisaged under Section 105 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and also for the reason, that the cancellation was not proved in accordance with law. The document was merely marked and not exhibited. The learned Tribunal also found interpolation in the register to come to the FAO No. 237 of 1992 -22- conclusion, that this document was prepared to avoid the liability. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deddappa and others Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), on which reliance was placed also held as under :-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Savitabai Wd/O Satish Meshram And 3 Ors. vs Arun Maheshwarprasad Shriwastav And ... on 17 December, 2025

19. The counsel for the respondent no.2 has heavily relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Deddappa and others .vs. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company, reported in AIR 2008 SC 767 to substantiate his submission that the insurance company in such circumstances cannot be held responsible. However, the perusal of the judgment of Coordinate Bench demonstrates the fact that this judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court was also considered and after considering the entire controversy held that in absence of service of communication to insurer regarding cancellation of policy, the insurance company cannot be absolved from his responsibility.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Sova Dey & Ors vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr on 6 February, 2026

This Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjeet Kaur [(1998) 1 SCC 71] held that once a certificate of insurance is issued, the insurance company would not be absolved of its obligations to third parties Yet again in Deddappa & Ors. V. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. [2008) 2 SCC 595], having regard to the provisions contained in Section 54(v) of the Insurance Act, 1938, in the fact situation obtaining therein, it was opined:
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Sova Dey & Ors vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr on 6 February, 2026

This Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjeet Kaur [(1998) 1 SCC 71] held that once a certificate of insurance is issued, the insurance company would not be absolved of its obligations to third parties Yet again in Deddappa & Ors. V. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. [2008) 2 SCC 595], having regard to the provisions contained in Section 54(v) of the Insurance Act, 1938, in the fact situation obtaining therein, it was opined:
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next