Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.29 seconds)
Documents citing Manoj R. Annadurai Managing Director ... vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. ... on 11 October, 2011

Manoj Mishra vs . Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. on 7 February, 2012

20. As the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.3 therefore, primary liability to compensate the petitioner remains with Suit No. 174/10 Page No.10/13 Manoj Mishra Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. 11 that of respondent no. 3. Since the vehicle is owned by respondent no. 2 so it is vicariously liable to compensate the petitioner. It is an admitted position on record that the vehicle was insured with respondent no.1, therefore, respondent no. 1 becomes contractually liable to compensate the petitioner.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Precious Minerals & Smelting Ltd. vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd on 23 May, 2016

// 21 // Ltd. Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. IV (2015) CPJ 364 (NC); State Bank of India Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr., I (2015) CPJ 1 (NC); M/s. Vijay Concerns Vs. State Bank of India, Through : Branch Manager & Anr. 2013(4) CPR 165 (NC); M/s AICAM Engineering Limited Vs. National Insurance Company Limited 2009(2) CPR 259 (NC); Vijay Solvex Limited Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2007) CPJ 316 (NC) and Subhash Chand Jain Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited and Another, First Appeal No.272 of 2010 decided by Hon'ble National Commission on 13.10.2010.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Ashok Kumar Jain on 17 April, 2014

5. Shri P.K. Pual, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/O.P. argued that the respondent/complainant left the vehicle in front of shop unattended and final report of police was not submitted by the respondent/complainant within stipulated time before the appellant/O.P., therefore, the appellant/O.P. has rightly repudiated the claim of the respondent/complainant. He further argued that the impugned order passed by learned District Forum is contrary to law and the District Forum committed grave error in ignoring the fact that the respondent/complainant himself is liable for his negligent act and therefore, the order of the District Forum suffered from irregularity and illegality and is liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on Keshav Natu Mhatre vs. New India Assurance Company Limited III (2011) CPJ 135 (NC); Om Prakash vs. National Insurance Company Limited III (2012) CPJ 59 (NC); Manoj Agrawal vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1