Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.27 seconds)Section 2 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shinder Kaur And Ors. on 25 November, 1997
had taken the view contrary to the one reflected in Shinder Kaur's case (supra). Of course, aforesaid DB judgment of this Court was not cited. It may be mentioned that when the matter was admitted to DB, it is possible that at that stage the aforesaid DB judgment was also cited.
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Swaran Singh & Ors on 5 January, 2004
5. We have heard Shri Anupam Gupta, the learned amicus curiae and the learned counsel for the parties and given our thoughtful consideration to the issues raised in the matter. 6. The question under debate, as rightly urged by the learned amicus curiae has been answered by the Supreme Court very recently in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh and Ors., AIR 2004 SC 1531. The interpretation of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) vis-a-vis the proviso appended to subsections (4) and (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came up for adjudication. The Insurance Companies, in me claim petition, has raised defences like (a) driving licence produced by the Driver or owner of the vehicle was a fake one (b) driver did not have any licence whatsoever; (c) Licence although was granted to the concerned driver, but on expiry thereof, the same had not been renewed; (d) licence granted to the drivers being for one class or description of vehicle but the vehicle involved in the accident was of different class or description; and (e) the vehicle in question was driven by a person having a learner's licence. In the present case, we are concerned with the defence of the Insurance Company that licence granted to the drivers being for one class or description of vehicle but the vehicle involved in the accident was of different class or description. Before, however, dealing with the precise question as mentioned above, in paragraph 16, it was held that the relevant provisions of the Act indisputably are beneficent to the claimant. They are in the nature of a Social Welfare legislation. The precise question as mentioned above, has been answered by the Supreme Court.
Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kokilaben Chandravadan & Ors on 1 April, 1987
8. Reference in this connection first is made to judgment of the Supreme Court in Skandia Insurance Co, Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan and Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 654. The facts of the case, which were not in dispute were that an accident had taken place and the truck had come from Barejadi and had been un- loaded at Baroda. The driver had gone for bringing snacks from the opposite shop leaving the engine running. The ignition key was in the ignition lock and not in the cabin in the truck as alleged by the driver. The driver had handed over control of the truck to the cleaner. On these facts, the driver was grossly negligent in leaving such a truck with its running engine in the control of the cleaner. This being the immediate cause of the accident, the owner of the car, viz. the Insured was held vicariously liable along with the driver and the cleaner. The High Court took the view that there was not even an allegation that the insurer had at any time committed a breach of this condition. The insured had never permitted the cleaner to drive on the fatal occasion. The insured had permitted only the driver, who was admittedly the licenced driver. It is the driver's negligence in leaving the vehicle with its engine running with the ignition key in the ignition lock that resulted in the accident. The Insurance Company relied upon the exclusion clause incorporated in Sections 96(1) and 96(2)(b)(ii) of the said Act. While dealing with the same, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the defence could not succeed for three reasons, namely:-
Sohan Lal Passi vs P. Sesh Reddy & Ors on 17 July, 1996
In Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Hansrajbhai v. Kodala and Ors.,(2001)5 S.C.C. 175, the Supreme Court approved the view taken by it in Sohan Lal Passi's case (supra).
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Hansrajbhai V. Kodala & Ors on 4 April, 2001
In Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Hansrajbhai v. Kodala and Ors.,(2001)5 S.C.C. 175, the Supreme Court approved the view taken by it in Sohan Lal Passi's case (supra).
United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Lehru And Ors on 28 February, 2003
8.3 Once again in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru and Ors., (20032)134 P.L.R. 124 (S.C.):(2003)3 S.C.C. 338, where the appellant Insurance Company contested the claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the ground that since the license of the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident was fake, the appellant was not liable, it was held, in the context of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) dealing with breach of conditions, that where the owner has satisfied himself that the driver had a licence and was driving competently, there would be no breach of the said section and the insurer would not be absolved of its liability.