Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.03 seconds)National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kaushalaya Devi & Ors on 13 May, 2008
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
decision reported in (2008) 8 SCC 246 (National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kaushalya Devi
and Others), has re-iterated all these principles
regarding gratuitous passenger traveling in a goods
vehicle and held that the Insurance Company is not
liable.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
New India Assurance Co., Ltd., vs Yallavva W/O Yamanappa Dharnakeri on 12 May, 2020
26. Learned counsel for the appellants has
invited the attention of the Court on the full bench
judgment of this Court in Yallavva's case stated supra,
but the facts and circumstances of the said case are
entirely different.
Gadhilingappa @ Gadhilinga S/O Ulluru ... vs K. Guleppa S/O K Lingappa on 20 April, 2021
29. Under these circumstances, looking to the
facts and circumstances, it is evident that there is
clear fundamental breach of policy conditions and
hence as per the law laid down by the Apex Court a
gratuitous passenger/un-authorized passenger
traveling in the goods vehicle is not entitled for any
compensation from the insurer. Though the vehicle
was duly insured, there is fundamental breach of
22
policy conditions by the owner and the citations relied
upon by the learned counsel for appellants cannot be
made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
case in hand in view of the full bench judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court referred supra.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Vedwati & Ors on 20 February, 2007
Apart from that the full bench
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Baljit Kaur's
case and Vedwati's case, were not at all considered
and discussed in the said case. It was in respect of a
third party risk and further observed that there shall
not be a fundamental breach and in view of these
findings, the Insurance Company was held liable.
However, it is also observed that this shall not adopt
the above guidelines as a general rule in all cases, but
only under peculiar facts and circumstances of each
case and on giving appropriate reasons. Further, in
the said case, there was excess premium was
collected and additional premium was also collected.
United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Suresh K.K.& Anr on 4 April, 2008
22. At the outset, it is to be noted here that
the vehicle was a goods vehicle and deceased Ashok
was not an authorized representative of the goods
being transported in the vehicle. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in Civil Appeal Nos.6231-6232/2019,
15
considering the peculiar circumstances has ordered
the principle of pay and recover. But the Hon'ble Apex
Court has not laid down any special law or precedent
that pay and recovery is a rule in case of a gratuitous
passenger traveling in the goods vehicle. It is only
under special circumstances such an order is passed
and hence that cannot be considered as a precedent.
A similar view is also taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the decision reported in 2008 ACJ 1741 (United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Suresh K.K. and
another). Hence, it is evident that the Hon'ble Apex
Court has exercised the discretion considering the
peculiar facts and circumstances and directed the
Insurance Company to pay and recover considering
the minority of the children and deceased being a
coolie and the claimants being unable to recover the
same from owner but that cannot be treated as a
precedent.
M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Baljit Kaur And Ors on 6 January, 2004
However, in the said decision, the full bench judgment
20
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Baljit Kaur's case was not
at all discussed and hence the said principles cannot
be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of
the case in hand.
M Raju vs Y C Hemaraj on 3 March, 2014
In this context, the learned counsel for
respondent No.2-insurer has placed reliance on the
decision of this Court reported in [2015 Kant M.A.C.
540 (Kant)] (M.Raju Vs. M.C.Hemaraj and
another) wherein it is held that gratuitous passenger
traveling in the tempo, amounts to breach of
conditions of the policy on the part of the owner and
hence the insurer is absolved from liability by holding
that the owner is liable to pay compensation.
Babusab S/O Moulali And Anr vs Iffco-Tokio Gfeneral Insurance ... on 29 June, 2022
27. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-
Insurer has also placed reliance on the judgment of
this Court in the case of Babusab Vs. Iffco-Tokio
General Insurance Co. Ltd. In MFA No.31360/2013
connected with MFA No.200227/2014, wherein this
Court has elaborately considered this issue regarding
21
gratuitous passenger and held that the Insurance
Company is not liable to pay compensation.
1