Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
M/S Modern Insulators Ltd vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 22 February, 2000
While so, the defendants have come to the conclusion that the
damage was caused due to lightning is unsustainable. The inspection report
is based on mere assumption and presumption without obtaining any expert
8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/12/2025 04:36:11 pm )
S.A.No.206 of 2023
opinion. In the absence of any expert opinion, the findings of the Courts
below that the damage caused to the X-ray machine was due to lightning is
erroneous. The learned counsel relying on the judgment in Modern
Insulators Ltd., vs. Oriental Co. Ltd., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 734 would
submit that the insured has a duty to disclose and similarly it is the duty of
the insurance company and its agents to disclose all material fact in their
knowledge since the obligation of good faith applies to both equally.
M/S Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs Tata Aig Generla Insurance Company Ltd on 9 November, 2022
The
learned counsel further referred to the judgment in Texmo Marketing
Private Limited vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Limited & Others
reported in (2023) 1 SCC 428 and submitted that an exclusion clause in a
contract of insurance has to be interpreted differently. Not only the onus but
also the burden lies with the insurer when reliance is placed on such a
clause. Therefore, the insurance contract by its very nature mandates
disclosure of all material facts by both the parties, which in the present case
was not done by the defendants. He would further submit that though an
endeavour has been made on the side of the defendants that there has been
lightning on the date of accident and the same is denied by the plaintiff, the
9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/12/2025 04:36:11 pm )
S.A.No.206 of 2023
defendants ought to have examined a competent person from the
Meteorological Department to speak about the alleged occurrence of
lightning on the fateful day.
The Union Of India vs Bertine Jeanne Marie on 9 November, 2010
To Support his contention, he has relied upon
the judgment in the Union of India & Another Vs. Bertine Jeanne Marie
and 4 others reported in 2010 SCC Online Madras 5656. He would
submit that even assuming that on the date of accident there was heavy rain
and lightning, there is no independent evidence to show that only because
of heavy rain and lightning, damage was caused to the machine. While so,
the trial Court and the first Appellate Court erroneously dismissed the suit
filed by the plaintiff which warrants interference by this Court.
1