Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing The Royal Sundaram Alliance vs D.Gunasekaran on 13 June, 2014

The Branch Manager vs Radhika on 21 April, 2015

23.In the case on hand, PW2 (Govindaraj) is the complainant and only in his behest, the FIR was registered which has been marked as Ex.P1 before the Tribunal. As seen from the FIR, it is clear that there was no presence of the goods at the time of the accident on 16.03.2012. The FIR (Ex.P1) is also part of the claim petition No.762 of 2012 as seen from clause 9 of the said claim petition. However, the complainant (PW2) has made a contradictory statement in his deposition before the Tribunal stating that he and the deceased were returning in the goods vehicle along with the marriage articles belonging to the owner and had acted as owner's representatives when the accident happened which resulted in the death of Raman. This Court is of the considered view that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rattani case referred to supra is squarely applicable to the facts of this case also and the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimants in the case of Royal 14/20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.66 of 2016 Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. D.Gunasekaran and Others has no bearing for the facts of the instant case as in that case the complaint was given by a third party who did not travel in the goods vehicle at the time of the accident.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Tmt. Mumtaj on 10 March, 2016

8. As rightly pointed out by Mr. P. Satheesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent/ lorry owner, referring to the judgment of this Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. D. Gunasekaran reported in 2014 (2) TNMAC 79, contended that when the policy was taken, premium has been collected for six employees. In view of the decision of this Court, the Insurance Company is bound to pay the compensation and the liability cannot be foisted on the lorry owner. Even assuming that the lorry owner is liable to pay the compensation, the lorry owner is no way responsible for the illegal travel made by the employees and hence the liability cannot be foisted on him. Mr. J. Chandran, learned counsel for the Insurance Company referred to the decision of this Court, wherein it has been held that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for the persons who are not authorised to travel in the vehicle.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Vaidyanathan - Full Document

The Branch Manager vs Elumalai on 8 February, 2021

16.From the award of the Tribunal, it is seen that the owner of the vehicle has taken package policy and 2nd respondent has not denied the same. As per Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner insured, of all the claims made by the owner of the goods or his authorised agents who travelled along with the goods in the _____ 30/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.Nos.3347, 3353 & 4450 of 2019 goods vehicle. There is no necessity to pay separate premium to cover the owner or his authorised agent travelling in the goods vehicle. The statutory liability is fixed on the insurer in this regard. This issue was considered by this Court in the judgment reported in 2014 (2) TNMAC 79 [Royal Sundaram Vs. D.Gunasekaran]. In the said case, 6 ladies travelled as owner of the goods in the backside of the goods vehicle. This Court, considered the said contention that for owner of the goods or his representative, no additional premium is required and they are statutorily covered. Again this issue was considered by this Court in C.M.A.No.2825 of 2010 by the judgment dated 25.09.2014 and held that as per Rule 236 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, 6 persons can travel in the goods vehicle, sitting on the backside of the goods vehicle. This Court considering the judgments in this issue in paragraph nos.12 to 15, held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - V M Velumani - Full Document

The Branch Manager vs Elumalai on 8 February, 2021

16.From the award of the Tribunal, it is seen that the owner of the vehicle has taken package policy and 2nd respondent has not denied the same. As per Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner insured, of all the claims made by the owner of the goods or his authorised agents who travelled along with the goods in the _____ 30/45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.Nos.3347, 3353 & 4450 of 2019 goods vehicle. There is no necessity to pay separate premium to cover the owner or his authorised agent travelling in the goods vehicle. The statutory liability is fixed on the insurer in this regard. This issue was considered by this Court in the judgment reported in 2014 (2) TNMAC 79 [Royal Sundaram Vs. D.Gunasekaran]. In the said case, 6 ladies travelled as owner of the goods in the backside of the goods vehicle. This Court, considered the said contention that for owner of the goods or his representative, no additional premium is required and they are statutorily covered. Again this issue was considered by this Court in C.M.A.No.2825 of 2010 by the judgment dated 25.09.2014 and held that as per Rule 236 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, 6 persons can travel in the goods vehicle, sitting on the backside of the goods vehicle. This Court considering the judgments in this issue in paragraph nos.12 to 15, held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - V M Velumani - Full Document

M/S New India Assurance Co.Ltd vs Thiru Murugan on 5 January, 2017

Again pressing into service a judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., v. D.Gunasekaran and others, 2014 (2) TN MAC 79 to advance the argument that even under an 'Act policy', the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the owner of the goods or his representative, as per Section 147(1)(b) & (c) giving statutory protection to the insured in case of goods vehicle. Therefore, the contention that the insurer is liable only in respect of one passenger is also not tenable, he pleaded.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 6 - T Raja - Full Document

E.Pon Indira vs K.Sannasi on 8 October, 2018

15.In view of the above facts and judgment referred to above, the award of the Tribunal exonerating the second respondent is liable to be set aside and hereby set aside. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, modifying the award dated 14.06.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.193 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Principal District Court, Thoothukudi, directing both the respondents to pay compensation. The quantum of compensation awarded is confirmed. No costs.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - V M Velumani - Full Document

E.Pon Indira vs K.Sannasi on 23 October, 2018

15.In view of the above facts and judgment referred to above, the award of the Tribunal exonerating the second respondent is liable to be set aside and hereby set aside. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, modifying the award dated 14.06.2013 made in M.C.O.P.No.193 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Principal District Court, Thoothukudi, directing both the respondents to pay compensation. The quantum of compensation awarded is confirmed. No costs.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - V M Velumani - Full Document

Chitra vs M.Shanthi on 25 September, 2014

12.The judgment delivered in C.M.A.Nos.1739 to 1746 of 2007, dated 13.06.2014 (Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. D.Gunasekaran and others) gives a fitting answer to this issue. In the said Judgment, the learned Single Judge of this Court, considering Rule 236 & 238 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, has held as follows_ 63.Rule 236 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, states that no person shall be carried in the cabin of a goods carriage beyond the number for which there is a seating accommodation at the rate of thirty eight centimeters measured along the seat, excluding the space reserved for the driver, for each person, and not more than six persons in all in addition to the driver shall be carried in any goods carriage. Thirty eight Centimetres space may accommodate one passenger.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R Subbiah - Full Document
1