Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.67 seconds)
Maya Devi vs Life Insurance Corpn. Of India on 21 May, 2008 cites

Prithvi Raj Bhandari vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India ... on 26 May, 2006

19. Despite the aforesaid two judgements, in the case of Prithvi Raj Bhandari (supra), the Commission observed that 'the important point which required notice was whether murder was an accident would depend upon proximity of cause of such murder' and held on facts that the complainant has suppressed the fact that various complaints against the deceased were filed under various Sections of the IPC, and concluded that there was no doubt that this was a murder by design and intent rather than a case of accidental murder.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 8 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Smt.Rita Devi & Ors vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd. & Anr on 27 April, 2000

17. Firstly, it is to be stated that in the case of Rita Devi (supra), the Apex Court considered and interpreted a phrase providing "death due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle". Thereafter, the Court referred to various decisions and arrived at a conclusion that they have no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the deceased, Dashrath Singh, was employed to drive an auto rickshaw for ferrying passengers on hire. On the fateful day the auto-rickshaw was parked at auto-rickshaw stand and unknown passengers engaged the said auto-rickshaw for their journey and during that journey, it was alleged that the passengers caused murder of Dashrath Singh. The Apex Court held that death in such case was due to accident. The Court further observed that the difference between 'murder which is not an accident' and 'murder with is an accident' depends on the proximity of the cause of such murder. If the cause of murder or act of murder was originally not intended and the same was caused in furtherance of any felonious act then such murder is an accidental murder arising out of the use of motor vehicle and held that the insurance company was liable to reimburse the claimant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 419 - Full Document
1