Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing Oriental Fire And General Insurance ... vs Aminbhai Pirmohomad Master And Ors. on 28 January, 1986

Madhuben Wd/O Decd. Natubhai ... vs Vasudev Parshottamdas Desai & 6 on 18 February, 2014

16. Apart from the fact that the contents of the insurance policy have not been proved before this court, more significantly, as noticed earlier, the insurance policy reveals that the insured is one Shri Purshottamdas Gudumal Chaturani. A perusal of the cause title of the impugned award shows that said Shri Purshottamdas Gudumal Chaturani had not been impleaded as a party in the claim petition filed before the Tribunal. Thus, the owner of the offending truck was not impleaded as a party before the Tribunal and for the first time, has been impleaded as respondent No.7 in the present appeal. The insured, therefore, was not a party before the Tribunal. The question, therefore, arises for consideration as to whether any award could have been passed by the Tribunal against the Insurance Company in the absence of the insured. The said issue is no longer res integra, inasmuch as, a Division Bench of this court in the case of the Oriental Fire & General Insurance Insurance Company v. Aminbhai Pirmohomad Master (supra), wherein the grievance raised by the Insurance Company as the insurer of the motorcycle was that the owner of the motorcycle was not made a party to the petition, and therefore, no award could have been passed against the Insurance Company. The court held that the Insurance Company had insured the owner of the motorcycle. By insuring the owner of the motorcycle, the Insurance Company had agreed to indemnify whatever compensation he might have to pay for the injuries caused by the vehicle in question. The Page 11 of 13 C/FA/2381/2002 JUDGMENT question of the Insurance Company paying the amount of compensation would arise only if and when there was some award passed against the owner of the vehicle. When the owner of the vehicle is not made a party, the question of passing any award against the Insurance Company does not arise. No award could have been passed and the Tribunal had even no jurisdiction to pass such an award against the Insurance Company in the absence of the owner.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - H Devani - Full Document

New India Assurance Company Lt vs Bhanuben Pragneshkumar Soni on 18 April, 2022

9. Considering the sole ground raised and on perusal of the record and proceedings of the case, it is a matter of fact that the owner of the Maruti Van was not impleaded as a party and in absence of the owner of Maruti Van, the insurance Company i.e. New India Assurance Company Limited cannot be held to be liable. We are fortified in our view that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Vs. Aminbhai Pirmohamad Master & Ors., reported in 1986 GLH 463, wherein the Division Bench has held thus:-
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R M Chhaya - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Krishnakumar Kittu Nair on 20 February, 2001

[b] The decision in Oriental Fire & General insurance Co. v. Aminbhai Pirmohomad Master and others, reported in 27(2) GLR 986 was cited for the proposition that if the insured is not impleaded, no award can be passed against the insurer, for there is none who can be indemnified, and that, such contention goes to the root of the case and can be raised for the first time in the appeal.
Gujarat High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - A M Kapadia - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Kumud Khosia And Ors. on 22 August, 1994

(9) The counsel for the insurance Company has referred me to the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Aminbhai Pirmohomad Master and others 1987 Acj 87 where a similar question arose and it was held that the contention raised is not of technical nature and is a pure question of law and goes to the very root to the matter. The same can, therefore, be raised in an appeal before the High Court. I am also not inclined to reject the contention of the appellant merely on the ground that it has not been raised and argued before the Tribunal.
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Oriental Fire And General Insurance Co. ... vs Champalal And Ors. on 27 February, 1989

10. Mr. Arora, learned Counsel for the appellant has invited my attention to Oriental Fire and General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Aminbhai Pirmohomad Master and Ors. 1987 (1) ACJ 87. In this case an objection was raised that no award can be passed against the Insurance Co. in the absence of owner and this plea was upheld by the Gujarat High Court. It is true that the liability of the owner and the Insurance Co. is co-extensive and if the owner is not made a party then the Insurance Co. cannot be made liable. But this case is of no avail so far as the present case is concerned.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A K Mathur - Full Document

Oriental Fire And General Insurance Co. ... vs Champalal And Ors. on 27 February, 1989

10. Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the appellant, has invited my attention to Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. v. Aminbhai Pirmohomad Master [1989] 1 ACJ 87 ; [1989] 65 Comp Cas 148 (Guj). In this case, an objection was raised that no award can be passed against the insurance company in the absence of the owner and this plea was upheld by the Gujarat High Court. It is true that the liability of the owner and the insurance company is co-extensive and if the owner is not made a party, then the insurance company cannot be made liable. But this case is of no avail so far as the present case is concerned.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A K Mathur - Full Document

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance ... vs Legal Heirs Of Decd. Dakshaben ... on 26 September, 2017

-claimants to claim interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 140 of the Act is concerned, cannot be disputed. However, it deserves to be noted that the original claimants themselves have filed main claim petition under Section 166 of the Act; as legal representatives of the persons who died due to accident. Incidentally, one of them was owner of the vehicle- Wagon-R and the rest of them, who expired in the accident were family members of the original claimants. From the record of the Tribunal, it clearly transpires that the owner of the vehicle involved i.e. Wagon-R are not made party though their legal representatives in the main petition. Considering the ratio laid down by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in case of (The) Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Vs. Aminbhai Pirmohomad Page 6 of 9 HC-NIC Page 6 of 9 Created On Mon Oct 02 05:24:24 IST 2017 C/FA/2306/2016 JUDGMENT Master & Ors. reported in 1986 GLH 463.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R M Chhaya - Full Document
1