Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 221 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing National Insurance Company Ltd vs Seema Malhotra And Ors on 20 February, 2001

The National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Thiru. Shanmugam on 4 August, 2010

11. It is no doubt true that the decision in 2001 ACJ 638 (National Insurance Co. Ltd., V. Seema Malhotra and others) considered the decision reported in (1988) 1 SCC 371 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., V. Inderjit Kaur and others) only to hold that the issue on the dishonour of cheque was not considered therein. But nevertheless, as pointed out by me, even in a case of contract not being there between the insured and the insurer, when the factum of cancellation is a matter which had come to surface only after the accident had occurred, going by the concept of welfare legislation in this case, I am constrained to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the first respondent. In a similar situation, the Kerala High Court considered the decision, which was relied on by the first respondent herein.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - C Venkataraman - Full Document

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Khairati Ram Salwan & Anr. on 15 December, 2015

11.    The main point for consideration in the case is whether the policy can be stated to be in force on the day of incident, because intimation about dishonour of the cheque was not given to the complainant/respondent no. 1, or the Insurance Company received such intimation from the Bank on 20.08.2007, although the accident had taken place on 17.08.2007.  It is true that the Bank sent a communication to the Insurance Company on 03.08.2007, intimating them about the dishonour of the cheque on account of difference in signatures of the drawer, but the said intimation was received by them on 20.08.2007 and communicated to the complainant/respondent no. 1 on 29.08.2007.  Following the ratio of the judgments given in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Seema Malhotra (Supra) and Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.  Sanjay Kumar Panigrahi (Supra), it can be safely concluded that the insured is not liable to be given the claim amount under the insurance policy, because the said policy became void ab-initio because of the dishonour of the cheque.  It shall not be legally justifiable to hold that the insurance policy was valid till intimation about the dishonour of cheque was given to the complainant/respondent no. 1.  By no stretch of imagination, the insurance policy can be stated to be in force for a period of certain days, during which the matter regarding realisation of the premium amount remained under correspondence between the Insurance Company and the Bank.  There is no valid reason, therefore, to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the State Commission that there was deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner as they withheld information about the dishonour of the cheque from the complainant/respondent no. 1 for a number of days and that the insurance policy was valid on the day the accident took place.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 5 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

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

This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is again misconceived. It is not a case where the premium was not paid rather the finding recorded is, that there was a valid insurance policy, which was not proved to have been cancelled, as the Insurance Company failed to prove the refund of the premium for the unexpired period of 11 months. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Seema Malhotra and others (supra), therefore, does not advances the case of the Insurance Company to deny its liability.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M. Nageswara Rao vs New India Assurance Company Limited And ... on 4 April, 2002

8. We have perused this judgment as well as the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the insurance company. We have a feeling that the learned Judges dealing with Seema Malhotra 's case (supra) has taken portion of those two judgments in support of their view. But they have not adverted to the provisions of Chapter XI of the M.V. Act, which specifically deals with insurance of all motor vehicles against third party risks and in particular Sections 146, 147(5) and 149 of 1988 Act corresponding to Sections 94, 95 and 96 of 1939 Act which are in pari meteria contained the same language.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 19 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

The United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Delhi Transport Corporation & Another on 28 November, 2025

18. After giving anxious hearing and considering the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited‟s case (supra 3), wherein it throws light that if the insurer is informed after the accident occurred regarding the bouncing of the cheque, the insurer is definitely liable to indemnify and hence considering the above ratio which is the law of the land, this Court feels it appropriate to fasten the liability on the insurer.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The New India Assurance Company ... vs Smt. J.Suseelamma And 5 Others on 1 November, 2023

18) After considering the earlier Judgments rendered by the Apex Court, in this regard, in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Inderjit Kaur (2 supra), National Insurance Company Limited v. Seema Malhotra (3 supra) and Deddappa v. National Insurance Company Limited (4 supra) and after considering the relevant provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act i.e., Sections 147, 149 and also Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, the Apex Court authoritatively held at para No.26 as follows:
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next