Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 40 (0.68 seconds)
Documents citing Mahaveer vs The Branch Manager United India ... on 3 April, 2019

Mo Azad vs Go Digit General Insurance Limited on 23 April, 2026

4. What assumes significance in the above case is that despite the owner of the vehicle having been a party before the tribunal, no evidence was given. The owner did not mount the box nor was any license produced either of the person who was driving the vehicle or the person to whom it was entrusted. The owner thus failed to prove that the vehicle was entrusted to a person having valid license. with above observation, Hon'ble Apex Court dismiss the Spl. Leave Petition. As such, in view of observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court if owner of offending vehicle party to the proceedings fails to furnish the driving license of the offending vehicle, then in such eventuality the liability of the SCCH-21 27 MVC No.5516/2024 insurer is absolved. Admittedly, in this case owner of the offending vehicle not produced driving license of the offending vehicle. As such, the above decision is aptly applicable to the present case in hand. Hence, insurance companies (respondent No.1 and
Bangalore District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harish K N vs Gsr Constructions on 1 August, 2025

46. If the said judgment is perused, challenging the judgment and order dated 12-04-2017 passed in MFA No.21167/2013 by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench, the aforesaid Special Leave Petition was preferred. Hence, it can be said that the accident in question in the said case was occurred SCCH-24 28 MVC 5790/2023 earlier to 2018 ie., prior to the amendment Act. So far as position of law prior to amendment is concerned, it has been well discussed in a case National Insurance Co.Ltd.,/Swarna Singh & Ors., and observation made therein has to be applied.
Bangalore District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Md Ibaran Alias Mohammed Ibaran Alias ... vs Mohan Kumar D on 1 September, 2025

34. Now at this juncture it would be relevant to refer here the judgment relied by the learned counsel for respondent no.2 reported in SLP (Civil) NO.11757/2025 between Mahaveer Vs. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., & Ors. In the said case, it was the defence of the Insurance company that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving license, hence they are not liable to pay the compensation. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "it is neither for the Insurance company to prove the negative nor is it possible to presume based only on the charge sheet filed, the entrustment of the vehicle by the owner, which charge is on the rash and negligent driving of the driver. What assumes significance is that despite the owner of the vehicle having been a party before the Tribunal, no evidence was given. The owner did not mount the witness box nor was any license produced either of the person who was driving the vehicle or the person to whom it was entrusted. The owner thus failed to prove that the vehicle was entrusted to a person having valid license.
Bangalore District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Muniraju vs Saraswathi on 6 November, 2025

24. Now at this juncture it would be relevant to refer here the judgment relied by the learned counsel for respondent no.2 reported in SLP (Civil) NO.11757/2025 between Mahaveer Vs. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., & Ors. In the said case, it was the defence of the Insurance company that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving license, hence they are not liable to pay the compensation. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "it is neither for the Insurance company to prove the negative nor is it possible to presume based only on the charge sheet filed, the entrustment of the vehicle by the owner, which charge is on the rash and negligent driving of the driver. What assumes significance is that despite the owner of the vehicle having been a party before the Tribunal, no evidence was given. The owner did not mount the witness box nor was any license produced either of the person who was driving the vehicle or the person to whom it was SCCH-24 14 MVC 1814/2024 entrusted. The owner thus failed to prove that the vehicle was entrusted to a person having valid license.
Bangalore District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajegowda vs Govindegowda B.B on 10 November, 2025

22. As far as the liability is concerned the respondent No.2 has got examined Legal Manager of the respondent No.2 company as RW.1 and in her chief-examination she has deposed that though they have issued a policy of insurance and same was valid as on the date of the accident however, the owner of the vehicle has entrusted the offending vehicle to a person who did not have a valid DL and hence charge sheet has been filed against the rider of the offending vehicle for the SCCH 15 17 MVC No.3854/2023 offenses under Sec.181(3) of MV Act. Due to absence of valid DL, there is breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and hence it is submitted that the respondent insurance company is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.1. In support of the same Ex.R3 is produced which is the letter addressed to the owner of the vehicle to produce the DL and similar notice is also issued as per Ex.R6 by the Investigation Officer under Sec.133 of MV Act. In Ex.R7 Reply to the notice under Sec.133 MV Act, the owner of the vehicle has stated that he had given the vehicle to one Ravi S/o Rangegowda and DL has been produced to prove that the rider of the offending vehicle had valid DL as on the date of the accident, hence, there is breach of the policy conditions. RW1 is cross- examined by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein it is suggested that the RTO is the proper authority to state regarding the existence of the DL. However, the charge sheet can be relied to prove that the rider of the offending vehicle did not have DL as on the date of the accident. Once evidence is SCCH 15 18 MVC No.3854/2023 adduced that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid DL the burden shifts on the petitioner to prove existence of DL since the existence of a particular fact will have to be proved by a person who would fail if no evidence is adduced on either side. In addition respondent has remained absent and has not chosen to appear to prove existence of driving license. On this aspect adverting to the dictum of law laid down in SLP (Civil) No.11757/2005, between Mahaveer Vs The Branch Manager, United India Ins. Co. Ltd., & others relied upon by the counsel for respondent No2 even in this case despite the owner of the vehicle having been a party before this tribunal no evidence was given and the owner did not mount the box nor was any license produced either of the person who was driving the vehicle or to whom it was entrusted. Hence the owner has failed to prove that the vehicle was entrusted to a person having valid license. Hence, there is satisfactory material to hold that there is a breach of the policy conditions SCCH 15 19 MVC No.3854/2023 and hence the Respondent No.1 being owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation.
Bangalore District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next