Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.28 seconds)
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs Karthiyani, on 15 October, 2012 cites

New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Prabhu Lal on 30 November, 2007

5.  The counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the person who does not have a badge is not permitted to drive a transport vehicle and the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the claim.  The driver of this vehicle was only having a light motor vehicle license .  Further the vehicle being a taxi, Section 3 of the MV Act requires holding of valid driving license which is very material in a case and Section 5 also declares that owner of person in charge of the motor vehicle can cause or permit any person which does not satisfy the provisions of Section 3 to drive a vehicle.  Section 66 prohibits owner of a motor vehicle to use or to permit the use of motor vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public space is same in accordance with the conditions of permit granted by an appropriate authority.  The counsel relied on the decision in New India Assurance Company Vs. Prabhu Lal 1(2008)CPJ 1(SC).
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 177 - C K Thakker - Full Document

G.Thara vs Syamala.S on 9 January, 2009

The Counsel also pointed out the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in Thara Vs Syamala 2009(2)KLT 707 wherein the vehicle involved in the accident did not have a valid fitness certificate or permit at the time of accident. Section 149(2)(a)(i)(c) of the Act provided that the Insurer can escape from liability if the vehicle at the time of accident  was used for a purpose not allowed by the permit where the vehicle is a transport vehicle.  The permit and fitness certificate had expired prior to the date of accident.  Hence it will entitle the insurer to dishonor liability under the policy.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 23 - Full Document
1