Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.16 seconds)
Mohammed Salar vs Syed Ibrahim And Ors. on 18 January, 2005 cites

United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Dhanalakshmi And Ors. on 30 May, 1997

The decision of this Court in United Insurance Company Limited's case, has to be read in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited referred to above. However, it is duty of the Tribunal to find out in each case as to whether the Insurance Company has been able to discharge its burden of proving breach of conditions of the policy in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the above referred case and it should not absolve the Insurance Company of its liability to satisfy the claim of a third party whose interest is compulsorily insurable under the Act and would only enable the Insurance Company in case it succeeds in proving the breach of conditions of the policy, to recover the amount from the insured as laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred decision".
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - C N Rao - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Swaran Singh & Ors on 5 January, 2004

The aforesaid evidence of the driver of the lorry clearly discloses that he had the long experience of driving the said lorry for 12 years. The same confirms that he is seasoned driver and capable of driving the said vehicle. According to him, the deceased-boy suddenly crossed the road. If it is so, the accident has not occurred due to the incapacity of the driver of the lorry to drive the said vehicle. There is no nexus between the accident and the factum of not possessing requisite type of licence by the driver. Under such circumstances, as has been held by the Apex Court in Swaran Singh's case, referred the Insurance Company shall not be allowed to avoid its liability to pay the compensation mainly on technical grounds of breach of condition by the driver of the offending vehicle. Thus, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 68 - Cited by 3847 - Full Document

Haji Zainullah Khan vs Nagar Mahapalika on 13 July, 1994

Admittedly, deceased Mujju was 7 years old boy and was studying in 2nd standard on the date of accident. He suffered grievous injuries in the said accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini lorry and died on the same day at 9.30 p.m. while undergoing treatment in the hospital. This finding of fact is not assailed in this appeal either by the owner of the vehicle or by the insurer. The Tribunal, in addition to the grant of lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- awarded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 500/- towards medical expenses. Thus, in all, it has awarded total compensation of Rs. 51,500/-. By now it is well-settled that in the event of the person who lost his life in a motor accident had no income, notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum can be taken as gross income of such person, as indicated in Schedule II to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to arrive at just and reasonable compensation. The Apex Court in the case of Haji Zainullah Khan (dead) by L.Rs v. Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, , has held that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation of at least Rs. 1,50,000/- for loss of child to the family. In the instant case, as deceased Mujju was non-earning member of the family, notional income for the purpose of assessing the just compensation shall be taken as Rs. 15,000/- per annum, out of which if l/3rd is deducted for notional personal expenses, the net income would come to Rs. 10,000/- per annum. The multiplier for the children aged upto 15 years has been set out as 15. Thus, applying the same, the compensation payable to the parents of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 1,50,000/-. The compensation of Rs. 1,500/- awarded by the Tribunal under other conventional heads i.e., funeral expenses and medical expenses does not call for interference by this Court. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the claimants-respondents 1 and 2 in M.F.A. No. 2563 of 2000 are entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 1,51,500/-which can be rounded off to Rs. 1,52,000/-.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 46 - K Singh - Full Document
1