Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.28 seconds)National Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs Jugal Kishore & Others on 9 February, 1988
The matter was, therefore, referred to a Constitution Bench comprising five Judges of the Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., v. C.M. JAVA AND ORS. The Court, eventually came to the conclusion that there was no conflict between the two decisions particularly when support for the view taken therein was borrowed from the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. JUGAL KISHOR's cited supra. The existence of a comprehensive policy was in the circumstances held to be insufficient by the Constitution Bench to extend the limit of the liability of the Company without the payment of an additional premium and the issue of a specific endorsement extending such liability.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs C.M. Jaya & Ors on 17 January, 2002
The matter was, therefore, referred to a Constitution Bench comprising five Judges of the Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., v. C.M. JAVA AND ORS. The Court, eventually came to the conclusion that there was no conflict between the two decisions particularly when support for the view taken therein was borrowed from the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. JUGAL KISHOR's cited supra. The existence of a comprehensive policy was in the circumstances held to be insufficient by the Constitution Bench to extend the limit of the liability of the Company without the payment of an additional premium and the issue of a specific endorsement extending such liability.
A.C. Gupta And Another vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Others. on 1 September, 2000
13. The Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in A.C. GUPTA AND ANR. v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., AND ORS. also dealt with a similar situation. In that case also, the policy that fell for consideration was a comprehensive policy. The question was whether the liability of the Insurance Company stood extended beyond the statutory limit fixed under Section 95(2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Answering the question in the negative, the Court held that the words "such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939" appearing in the Policy showed that the extent of liability of the Insurance Company was limited to the one indicated in the statutory provision which at the relevant time was Rs. 1,50,000/-
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Shanti Bai & Ors on 6 February, 1995
12. The decision of the Supreme Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., v. SHANTHI BAI AND ORS., is also to the same effect. In that case also, the Court clearly held that a comprehensive Policy issued on the basis of the earlier value of the vehicle does not automatically result in covering the liability with regard third party risks for an amount higher than the statutory liability.
Amrit Lal Sood & Anr vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar & Ors on 17 March, 1998
The decision of the Supreme Court in AMRITLAL SOOD v. KAUSHALYA DEVI THAPAR lays down a similar proposition. As a matter of fact, the decisions in Shanthi Bai and Amritlal were perceived by the Supreme Court to be in conflict with each other at one stage.
The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi & Ors vs Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd. & ... on 25 March, 1977
11. Placed in Juxta position, the liability of the Insurance Company under an Act Policy was at the relevant time limited to a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- only. That does not, however, mean that the insured - owner of the vehicle could not have taken a larger cover by payment of an additional premium so as to extend the liability of the Insurance beyond the amount fixed under the statute. The decision of the Supreme Court in PUSHPABAI PARSHOTTAM UDESHI AND ORS. v. RANJIT GINNING AND PRESSING CO. PVT. LTD., declares that the insured can take a cover larger than what is prescribed by the Act to be the bare minimum.
Section 95 in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
1