Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)
Ningamma & Anr vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd on 13 May, 2009 cites

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rajni Devi & Ors on 22 April, 2008

In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajni Devi and Others, (2008) 5 SCC 736, wherein one of us, namely, Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha is a party, it has been categorically held that in a case where third party is involved, the liability of the insurance company would be unlimited. It was also held in the said decision that where, however, compensation is claimed for the death of the owner or another passenger of the vehicle, the contract of insurance being governed by the contract qua contract, the claim of the claimant against the insurance company would depend upon the terms thereof. It was held in the said decision that Section 163-A of the MVA cannot be said to have any application in respect of an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. The decision further Page 11 of 20 held that the question is no longer res integra. The liability under section 163-A of the MVA is on the owner of the vehicle. So a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient, with respect to claim. Therefore, the heirs of the deceased could not have maintained a claim in terms of Section 163-A of the MVA. In our considered opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid decision is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the deceased was not the owner of the motorbike in question. He borrowed the said motorbike from its real owner. The deceased cannot be held to be employee of the owner of the motorbike although he was authorised to drive the said vehicle by its owner, and therefore, he would step into the shoes of the owner of the motorbike.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 317 - S B Sinha - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Asha Rani & Ors on 17 August, 2001

In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani this Court had occasion to consider the scope of the expression "any person" occurring in Section 147 of the Act. This Court held: (SCC p. 235, para 26) "... that the meaning of the words `any person' must also be attributed having regard to the context in which they have been used i.e. `a third party'. Keeping in view the provisions of the 1988 Act, we are of the opinion that as the provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable therefor."
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 935 - Full Document

Minu B. Mehta And Another vs Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan And ... on 28 January, 1977

27. We think that the law laid down in Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan was accepted by the legislature while enacting the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by introducing Section 163-A of the Act providing for payment of compensation notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or in any other law for the time being in force that the owner of a motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be, and in a claim made under sub-section (1) of Section 163-A of the Act, the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned. Therefore, the victim of an accident or his dependants have an option either to proceed under Section 166 of the Act or under Section 163-A of the Act. Once they approach the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act, they have necessarily to take upon Page 9 of 20 themselves the burden of establishing the negligence of the driver or owner of the vehicle concerned. But if they proceed under Section 163-A of the Act, the compensation will be awarded in terms of the Schedule without calling upon the victim or his dependants to establish any negligence or default on the part of the owner of the vehicle or the driver of the vehicle.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 525 - P S Kailasam - Full Document

Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi & Ors vs Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd. & ... on 25 March, 1977

In Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd., two of the learned Judges who constituted the Bench in Minu B. Mehta held that when a car is driven by the owner's employee on owner's business, the normal rule was that it was for the claimant for compensation to prove negligence. When the Manager of the owner while driving the car on the business of the owner took in a passenger, it would be taken that he had the authority to do so, considering his position unless otherwise shown. If due to his negligent driving an accident occurred and the passenger died, the owner would be liable for compensation. The Court noticed that the modern trend was to make the master liable for acts of his servant which may not fall within the expression "in the course of his employment" as formerly understood. With respect, we think that the extensions to the principle of liability have been rightly indicated in this decision".
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 516 - P S Kailasam - Full Document

Raj Rani & Ors vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.& Ors on 6 May, 2009

23. Recently, this Court in the case of Raj Rani & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., [C.A. Nos. 3317-3318 of 2009 @ SLP(C) Nos. 27792-27793 of 2008 pronounced on 06.05.2009], wherein one of us (Hon'ble Justice S. B. Sinha) has taken the view that it is not necessary in a proceeding under the MVA to go by any rules of pleadings or evidence. Section 166 of the MVA speaks about "Just Compensation". The court's duty being to award "Just Compensation", it will try to arrive at the said finding irrespective of the fact as to whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant or not. It was further observed in the aforesaid case that although the multiplier specified in the Second Schedule appended to the MVA are stricto sensu not applicable in a case under Section 166 of the MVA, it is not of much dispute that wherever the court has to apply the appropriate multiplier having regard to several factors in mind.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 151 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1