Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.32 seconds)Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Hansrajbhai V. Kodala & Ors on 4 April, 2001
6. Deepal Girishbhai Soni's case, in fact, arose out of a
reference made for a decision on the correctness of the view
expressed in Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd. v. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala [(2001) 5 SCC 175] that
determination of compensation in a proceeding under
Section 163A of the Act is final and further proceedings
under Section 166 of the Act is barred.
Dhanraj vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 24 September, 2004
As held by the Apex Court in New India
Assurance Company Ltd. v. Prabhadevi [(2013) 14 SCC
719], after referring to the dictum laid down in Dhanraj v. New
India Assurance Company Ltd. [(2004) 8 SCC 553] and
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sunitha Rathi [(1998) 1
SCC 365], no liability could be shifted to the shoulders of the
insurance company, in the absence of wider coverage, if any, on
payment of additional premium.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sunita Rathi & Ors on 4 December, 1997
As held by the Apex Court in New India
Assurance Company Ltd. v. Prabhadevi [(2013) 14 SCC
719], after referring to the dictum laid down in Dhanraj v. New
India Assurance Company Ltd. [(2004) 8 SCC 553] and
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sunitha Rathi [(1998) 1
SCC 365], no liability could be shifted to the shoulders of the
insurance company, in the absence of wider coverage, if any, on
payment of additional premium.
Ramkhiladi vs The United India Insurance Company on 7 January, 2020
In the said decision, it is further held that Section 147
MACA No.466 of 2005 45
does not require an insurance company to assume risk for death or
bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle. In view of the above and
for the reasons stated above, as the claim under Section 163A of
the Act was made only against the owner and insurer of the
vehicle which was being driven by the deceased himself as
borrower of the vehicle from the owner of the vehicle and he
would be in the shoes of the owner, the High Court has rightly
observed and held that such a claim was not maintainable and the
claimants ought to have joined and/or ought to have made the
claim under Section 163A of the Act against the driver, owner
and/or the insurer of the offending vehicle, i.e., vehicle bearing
No.RJ-29/2M-9223 being a third party to the said vehicle.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Jhuma Saha And Ors on 16 January, 2007
47. In Ramkhiladi, it was contended before the Apex Court
that, in a claim under Section 163A of the Act mere use of the
vehicle is enough and despite the compensation claimed by the
heirs of the owner of the motorcycle which was involved in the
accident resulting in his death, the claim under Section 163A of
the Act would be maintainable. The Apex Court held that, the said
contention cannot be accepted, in view of the decision in Rajni
Devi [(2008) 5 SCC 736]. In Rajni Devi, it has been specifically
observed and held that the provisions of Section 163A of the Act
MACA No.466 of 2005 46
cannot be said to have any application with regard to an accident
wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved. After
considering the decisions in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
v. Jhuma Saha [(2007) 9 SCC 263], Dhanraj v. New India
Assurance Company Ltd. [(2004) 8 SCC 553], National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut [(2007) 3 SCC 700]
and Premkumari v. Prahlad Dev [(2008) 3 SCC 193], it is
ultimately concluded that the liability under Section 163A of the
Act is on the owner of the vehicle, as a person cannot be both, a
claimant as also a recipient and, therefore, the heirs of the owner
could not have maintained the claim in terms of Section 163A of
the Act.
Deepal Girishbhai Soni And Ors vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda on 18 March, 2004
6. Deepal Girishbhai Soni's case, in fact, arose out of a
reference made for a decision on the correctness of the view
expressed in Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd. v. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala [(2001) 5 SCC 175] that
determination of compensation in a proceeding under
Section 163A of the Act is final and further proceedings
under Section 166 of the Act is barred.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Malathi C. Salian on 11 April, 2003
After referring to various judgments of the Apex
Court and also the judgment of another Full Bench of this Court in
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. V. Malathi C. Salian
MACA No.466 of 2005 26
[2003 (3) KLT 460] the Full Bench held that in a case where,
though a claim is raised under Section 163A of the Act, once the
insurer or the insured comes up with the defence of absolving the
liability to pay compensation on the ground that the deceased was
responsible for the death or injury on account of either wrongful
act, negligent act or default, then, the liability of the insurer can
be absolved, if such plea or defence is established. After referring
to the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajni Devi the Full Bench
observed that, if the owner of the vehicle insures the vehicle by
paying additional premium, as personal accident coverage, then by
virtue of the terms of contract of insurance, the insurer would be
liable to pay compensation depending upon the limits of liability.