Search Results Page

Search Results

21 - 30 of 30 (0.29 seconds)
The Oriental Fire And General Insurance ... vs Matta Chandra Rao And Anr. on 18 October, 1986 cites

Indian Mutual General Insurance ... vs Manzoor Ashan And Ors. on 9 April, 1976

36. However, the Madras High Court in Common Wealth Assurance Co. v. P. Rahim Khan and in South India Insurance Co. v. Subramaniam and the Punjab Full Bench in O.F. and G, Insurance Co. v. G. Kaur (FB) the Madhya Pradesh High Court in South India Insurance Co. v. Heera Bat 1967 ACJ 65 and the Calcutta High Court in India Mutual G. Insurance Society v. Manzoor Ashan , have held that the owner of the goods carried is not covered by Clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 95(1)(b) and that unless there is a special contract the Company is not liable.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Laxmi Devi And Ors. on 24 January, 1984

39. A similar view has been taken by various High Courts. The Madras, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh in Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chinnammal in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Devi and in Hukam Chand Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Badruddin 1986 ACJ 184 (MP) have held that the Act-policy in Clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 95(1)(b) covers the liability of the Insurance Company in respect of the employees of the hirer or owner of the goods. There does not appear to be any direct case of our High Court but I am in agreement with the view taken by the above High Courts. In fact, the above interpretation is the starting point for the discussion under the next heading.
Orissa High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 15 - G B Patnaik - Full Document

Sushil Kumar Etc. vs Binodini Rath And Ors. on 13 September, 1976

53. The learned Counsel for the Paper Mills, Sri G. Krishna Moorthy and for the claimants Sri Sadasiva Reddy, however relied upon Sushil Kumar v. Binodini Rath, and in M.M. and G. Insurance Co. v. K. Subba Reddy and contended that the Insurance Company is liable even in case of injury to or death of gratuitous passengers. In these cases, while accepting that the Company is liable under Clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 95(1)(b) and not covered by Act-policy, still, it was held that there was a special contract. In fact, the policy was construed as covering gratuitous passengers by special contract Acharya J., of the Orissa High Court and Chinnappa Reddy J., (as he then was) in the Andhra Pradesh High Court relied on Schedule II of the policy-liability to third parties which reads thus:
Orissa High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Moturi Krishna Rao And Ors. vs Senagala Venkateswara Rao on 31 October, 1985

66. The cases which have presented difficulty are those in which there is a prohibition by the owner of the vehicle to his driver from carrying passengers at his will and cases where the Permit or the Rules prohibited the carriage of passengers. I have dealt with the latter aspect in the last mentioned paragraphs and held that the owner of the vehicle cannot plead the violation of the Permit or the Rules by himself or his driver. Coming to the former aspect where there is no proof of express prohibition by the owner of the vehicle to his driver, it has been held by the Supreme Court in Pushpa Bai's case (Supra) and by our High Court in M. Krishna Rao v. S. Venkateswara Rao 1986 (1) APLJ 425 (DB) following the dictum of Lord Denning quoted therein, that the owner of the vehicle is liable. A distinction is made between acts done outside the sphere or course of employment and those done within the said sphere. It was held that the owner of the vehicle is liable.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Mohd. Abdul Raheem vs Chakkala Parvatamma And Ors. on 31 July, 1985

31. Reliance is placed however by Sri S. Hanumaiah for the Company in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Madras v. P. Seethamma 1985 (2) APLJ 57 (SN) where there is a passing observation that the Insurance Company is not liable in the case of a passenger carried for hire or reward and to a similar view expressed in Mohd. Abdul Raheem v. Chakkala Parvatamma 1985 (3) APLJ 11 (SN)--which related to a case of a passenger carried for hire or reward.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
Previous   1 2 3