Search Results Page
Search Results
11 - 20 of 23 (0.18 seconds)The Insurance Act, 1938
Firdaus vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. . on 14 July, 2017
20. The learned Senior counsel for the first respondent also relied on the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (Firdaus vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others) reported in 2018 1 Law Weekly 153 wherein it was held that even if the insured vehicle stood transferred to the other person, the liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation amount will not cease.
The Representation Of The People Act, 1950
Pushpa @ Leela & Ors vs Shakuntala & Ors on 12 January, 2011
21. The learned Senior counsel for the first respondent also relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (Pushpa @ Leela and others vs. Shakuntala and others) reported in 2011 (2) CTC 693 to contend that even assuming that the transfer was not intimated to the concerned authority, still, the insurance coverage in respect of the vehicle in question is in tact and the insurance policy stand in the name of the original owner which will have the effect of the insurance company having the statutory obligation to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. Therefore, the learned Senior counsel for the first respondent would pray for setting aside the recovery right given by the Tribunal to the Insurance Company to recover the compensation amount from them, after paying it to the claimants.
Naveen Kumar vs Vijay Kumar And Ors on 6 February, 2018
18. The consistent thread of reasoning which emerges from the above decision is that in view of the definition of the expression 'owner' in Section 2 (3) , it is the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered who, for the purposes of the Act, would be treated as the 'owner'. However, where a person is a minor, the guardian of the minor would be treated as the owner. Where a Motor Vehicle is subject to an assignment of hire purchase, lease or hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement is treated as the owner. In a situation such as the present where the registered owner has purported to transfer the vehicle but continues to be reflected in the records of the registering authority as the owner of the vehicle, he would not stand absolved of liability. Parliament has consciously introduced the definition of the expression 'owner' in Section 2 (30), making a departure from the provisions of Section 2 (19) in the earlier Act of 1939. The principle underlying the provisions of Section 2 (30) is that the victim of a motor accident or, in the case of a death, the legal heirs of the deceased victim should not be left in a state of uncertainty. A claimant for compensation ought not to be burdened with following a trail of successive transfers, which are not registered with the registering authority. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the salutary object and purpose of the Act. Hence, the interpretation to be placed must facilitate the fulfilment of the object of the law. In the present case, the first respondent was the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident within the meaning of Section 2 (3). The liability to pay compensation stands fastened upon him. Admittedly the vehicle was uninsured. The High Court has proceeded upon a misconstruction of the judgments of this Court in Reshma and Purnya Kala Devi.
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Deepa Devi & Ors on 11 December, 2007
In this background, useful reference can be made to the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in (National Insurance Company Limited vs. Deepa Devi and others) reported in (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 414, in Para Nos. 10 and 11, it was observed as follows:-
Purnya Kala Devi vs State Of Assam & Anr on 7 April, 2014
In the light of the aforesaid dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above referred decisions, we are of the opinion that when possession and control of the vehicle was fully gained by the second respondent, as on the date of accident, through a legitimate means, the second respondent Vel Tech College of Engineering, is primarily liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. However, such primary liability fixed on the part of the second respondent will not absolve the liability of the registered owner of the vehicle in this case namely the first respondent Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering from paying the compensation amount to the claimants. In other words, the option is left open to the claimants to recover the compensation amount either from the registered owner - first respondent or from the second respondent, who was in possession and control of the vehicle in question, through legitimate means, at the time of accident. In such view of the matter, we answer question No.2 by holding that the vehicle in question was in possession, control and regulation of the second respondent Vel Tech Engineering College at the time of accident and thereby the second respondent is primarily liable to compensate the claimants and if the claimant had recovered the compensation amount from the first respondent either directly or through its insurer viz., the third respondent, the first respondent is entitled to get the same reimbursed of such amount paid, from the second respondent.
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Swaran Singh & Ors on 5 January, 2004
(v) Where, by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Satpal Singh's case, either expressly or even by implication, there has been a direction by the Trial Court to the Insurance Company to pay, the Appellate Court is obviously recovered to consider as to whether such direction should be set aside in its entirety and the liability should be fastened only on the driver and the owner or whether the Insurance Company should be directed to comply with the direction regarding payment to the Claimant and recover thereafter from the owner.
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi Son Of Late Prashant Sethi ... on 20 April, 2011
45. At the outset, the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that for determining the compensation amount, the age of the deceased has to be taken into account is legally sustainable in view of the decision rendered by the Full Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others) reported in (2017) (2) TN MAC 609 (SC) wherein it was categorically held that the age of the deceased has to be the basis for applying the multiplier.