Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.16 seconds)
The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Thulasi …Respondent/Petitioner on 7 November, 2022
cites
Section 173 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
National Insurance Company Limited vs G.Arumugam on 22 March, 2010
4.The Tribunal on considering the evidence on record came to
the conclusion that on account of the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the 1st respondent's vehicle, the accident has occurred. The
contentions raised by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company during
the arguments that the 1st respondent had violated the policy
conditions by allowing 21 persons travelled in a goods vehicle and
therefore, the 2nd respondent is not liable to compensate the 1st
respondent, was rejected on the ground that as per Ex.R.1 – Insurance
Policy, the owner-cum-driver and 3 employees were covered under the
Policy. The Tribunal took the view that there was a compulsory
coverage for the owner-cum-driver and 3 employees and at the time of
accident, 10 persons were travelling. The petitioner was a third party
and following the Judgments in National Insurance Company
Limited, Kovilpatti v. G.Arumugam and another reported in 2010
5/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.2683 of 2012
(2) TNMAC 362, directed the 2nd respondent Insurance Company to
pay compensation and recover the same from the 2nd respondent. As
regards the quantum of compensation, a sum of Rs.2,31,000/- was
awarded. Challenging the Award of compensation to the petitioner,
the Insurance Company is before this Court. Challenging the low
amount of compensation granted, the 2nd respondent Insurance
Company has filed the above Cross Objection.
1