Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 38 (0.37 seconds)
Icici vs Gitaben on 20 October, 2008 cites

Naynesh H. Nanavati vs Dashrath R. Bhagat And 2 Ors. on 3 October, 2006

15. By making observations as aforesaid, Karnataka High Court has made clear picture establishing contractual liability of insurance company by relying upon Circular dated 2nd June, 1986 issued by Tariff Advisory Committee and issue decided by Karnataka High Court is squarely covering the matter at issue in case before hand and according to my opinion, that aspect has been rightly examined by claims tribunal in this case and has rightly relied upon circular issued by Tariff Advisory Committee in respect to motor car by relying upon decision of this Court reported in 2007 (1) GLR page 567 in case of Naynesh H. Nanavati v. Dashrath R. Bhagat. Therefore, though there are recent decisions of apex court that pillion rider and owner or driver of motor cycle are not third party, according to my opinion, those decisions are interpreting section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act alone and in those decisions, apex court has not considered Circular dated 2nd June, 1986 issued by Tariff Advisory Committee for motor cycle and another circular relating to motor car and, therefore, in view of these facts involved in case before hand wherein claims tribunal has considered said circular, therefore, those decisions of apex court are not applicable to facts of this case as contractual obligation accepted by insurance company as per Tariff Advisory Committee Circular dated 2nd June, 1986 and, therefore, now, insurance company cannot deny responsibility or liability to pay compensation to claimants by relying upon apex court decisions as referred to above, therefore, contentions raised by learned Advocate Ms. Megha Jani cannot be accepted and same are, therefore, rejected.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Amrit Lal Sood & Anr vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar & Ors on 17 March, 1998

It is also now settled that the words ?Sany person?? occurring in Section 147 does not bring within their fold an occupant of a private car or a pillion rider, and that the risk in respect of such persons is not required to be covered by an insurer in order to meet the requirements of Section 147(1). The reference to the term ?Sany person?? in the verdict of the Apex Court in Amritlal Sood's case 1998 ACJ 531 SC is that of the term employed in Section II(1)(a) of the Comprehensive policy and not that of the term employed in Section 147 of the M.V.Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 210 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next