Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 373 (1.21 seconds)
Documents citing Pepsu Road Transport Corp vs National Insurance Co on 26 August, 2013

New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Harpreet Kaur And Ors on 9 October, 2025

16. The same principle was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. National Insurance Company Ltd., (2013) 10 SCC 217, where it was observed that if a driver produces a licence which appears genuine, and the employer is satisfied about the competence of the driver, the owner cannot be held liable even if the licence is later found to be fake. In such a situation, the liability to indemnify continues to rest upon the insurer, unless it is proved that the insured was aware of the licence being fake and still permitted the driver to operate the vehicle.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S P Sharma - Full Document

Gurmeet Singh vs Surjit Kaur And Ors on 4 December, 2018

In this case, original driving licence of driver of offending vehicle was fake. At the time of his appointment, owner of offending vehicle had not only taken his test but had also seen his driving licence and inquired from his previous employer, as such, there was no reason for him/owner to doubt that licence of Narinder Singh was not valid. Accident had taken place on 24.07.2010 and the driving licence of respondent No.4 was stated to be valid w.e.f. 19.04.2010 to 18.04.2013. Owner of offending vehicle has been successful in proving that there was no wilful negligence or lack of reasonable care on his part while employing or allowing respondent No.4 to drive the offending vehicle. Tribunal while allowing recovery right to the insurer has not looked into the evidence, as discussed above and the law is settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Company (supra), United India Insurance Company Vs. Lehru and others (supra), National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and others (supra).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S Gupta - Full Document

M/S Ess Ess Foot Wear Pvt. Ltd vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd on 25 May, 2016

22. I agree with the submissions of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that for possessing a fake license, the driver may be held liable, but, plaintiff company can not be punished on this account. Furthermore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the above mentioned judgments titled as 'Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Company' Civil Appeal No. 8276 of 2009' and 'National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut' (2007) 3 SCC 700, the burden to prove that plaintiff company was guilty of negligence and that it failed to exercise reasonable care regarding the use of vehicle by a duly licensed driver was on the Suit no. 60/14 M/s Ess Ess Foot Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 15/18 defendant company. No evidence is led on behalf of defendant to show that plaintiff company failed to exercise such care, therefore, the defendant company can not escape from its liability towards policy, even if, assumingly, the driver was not possessing the valid driving license at the time of accident.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Rita Sharma & Others on 20 November, 2018

Court in PEPSU Road Transport Corporation vs. National Insurance Company, reported in (2013)10 SCC 217 (i) qua it being sufficient, dehors, fakeness of the driving licence, qua, the owner per se hence being inferable, to, evidently exercise reasonable care and diligence, in engaging a person as a driver, upon the offending vehicle, inference, of, exercise, of, diligence by him being firmly drawable, upon, mere engagement thereon, as obviously he would not beget endanger to his life, upon, engaging an improficient driver, unless contra therewith best evidence, stands adduced, (ii) and, hence it not being incumbent upon the owner concerned, to, verify the genuineness, of, the driving licence, issued from the licencing authority concerned, (iii) unless, at the time of execution of contract of insurance, the insurer insists, upon, the owner to verify, the, genuineness of the apposite driving licence, issued from the licencing authority concerned. Since, the insurer has not adduced ::: Downloaded on - 24/11/2018 22:56:24 :::HCHP ...12...
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - S Thakur - Full Document

M/S Onkar Bus Service Ltd vs Avtar Singh And Ors on 28 November, 2018

In this case, original driving licence of driver of offending vehicle was fake but it was validly renewed four times from the year 2001 7 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 01-01-2019 03:17:45 ::: FAO-6107-2015 -8- onwards to 2013. At the time of his appointment, owner of offending vehicle had not only taken his test but had also checked his driving licence which had been renewed twice before his appointment, as such, there was no reason for him(owner) to doubt that licence of driver of offending vehicle was not valid. Accident had taken place on 01.09.2012 and in the meanwhile driving licence of respondent No.5 was again validly renewed upto 10.11.2010 and again upto 25.11.2013 and as per renewal, he was competent to drive bus or truck. Owner of offending vehicle has been successful in proving that there was no wilful negligence or lack of reasonable care on his part while employing or allowing respondent No.5 to drive the offending vehicle. Tribunal while allowing recovery right to the insurer has not looked into the evidence, as discussed above and the law is settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Company (supra), United India Insurance Company Vs. Lehru and others (supra), National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and others (supra), As a sequel of my above discussion, I find merits in this appeal and the same is accepted. Impugned award to the extent it grants recovery rights to the insurer against the insured, is set aside.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Gupta - Full Document

National Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. D Shreedevi & Ors on 11 August, 2016

In the present case, the owner has appeared in the witness-box and was cursorily cross-examined, wherein he denied the suggestion made by the appellant - Insurance Company. The evidence available on record, does not suggest that the owner was aware about the fact of the licence being fake and in those circumstances and law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh (supra), Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (supra) and this Court in Tafajjul 9 Hussain (supra), the Insurance Company cannot seek exoneration from its liability towards payment of compensation to the claimants.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A Bhansali - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next