Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.23 seconds)
Documents citing Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd vs Manorben Shankarlal Lakhara & 3 on 16 June, 2014

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Kanhaiyalal on 19 December, 2017

Responding to it, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not only challenged the direction relating to pay and recover but has also challenged the involvement of the vehicle and placing reliance upon the orders of this Court reported in MACT 2008 (2) (M.P.) 673 in the matter of Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shankarlal, reported in 2008 ACT 2017 in the matter of Raj Bai and others Vs. New India Assurance Co Ltd., order dated 11.1.2011 in M.A. No.3531/2008 in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramkalibai and others and the order dated 24.4.2015 in M.A. No.2194/2013 in the case of Karansingh Vs. Omprakash and others, he has submitted that the appeal is maintainable and referring to the order of the Supreme Court referred in the case of Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. (supra) he has further submitted that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to direct the insurance company to pay and recover it from the owner and driver, hence the order is without jurisdiction and this aspect has not been considered by the Allahabad High Court. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the judgment relied upon by counsel for the appellant and also considering that in the appeal the very involvement of the vehicle and jurisdiction of the tribunal to direct pay and recover has been challenged, I am of the opinion that the objection by the respondent in respect of maintainability of the appeal cannot be sustained and is hereby rejected.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1