Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.31 seconds)United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Shri Gian Chand And Others on 2 September, 1997
However, in this case it is established by the
pleadings and the evidence that the driver had no valid
license so held but it was not a case that the license was not
proved by the Insurance Company and hence held that in
decision reported in 1997 (7) SCC 558 (United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gian Chand & Ors.) is not
19
applicable and was distinguished when consider.
Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kokilaben Chandravadan & Ors on 1 April, 1987
17. Further in case reported in 2004 ACJ 1071
(Padmabati Devi Vr. Dasarathi Sahu & Anr.) in an accident
by motor vehicle the contention of the Insurance Company
that the driver had licence to drive light motor vehicle
define in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act as weight
of vehicle not exceeding 7500 Kg. but offending vehicle
17
was trekker and it was for the Insurance Company so show
that the gross vehicle laden weight on trekker was more
than 7500 Kg. unless it is proved that offending trekker was
not a light motor vehicle, the driving license cannot be held
to be invalid and relying upon decision reported in 1987 (2)
SCC 654 (Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kokilaben
Chandravadan & Ors.) the grievance of the claimant is that
the Insurance Company be held liable to pay compensation
has been allowed.
Narcinva V. Kamat And Anr. Etc vs Alfred Antonio Doe Martins And Ors on 25 April, 1985
In decision
reported in 1985 (2) SCC 574/754 (Narcinva V. Kamat &
Anr. Vs. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins & Ors.) an accident
took place, the vehicle was insured and before the Tribunal
it was contended that according to the term of the contract
of Insurance the vehicle can be driven either by the driver
under the employment of the insured or with the permission
of the insured by one who holds a valid license and the
issues framed that whether the driver who was driving the
vehicle was holding an effective driving license and the
Tribunal held as the driver did not produce the driving
license so it must be held that the driver did not have a valid
driving license and hence concluded that in the absence of
valid driving license there was a breach of contract and the
Insurance Company was absolved from the liability. An
13
appeal preferred before the High Court of Bombay, a
Division Bench of the High Court agreeing with the finding
of the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and the matter came
up before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court held
in paragraph 12 (i) ...."that it is contended on behalf of the
Insurance Company that the second appellant did not have a
valid driving license. It is the Insurance Company which
complain that there has been a breach of one of the
important terms of the contract of insurance as evidenced
by the policy of insurance and that the second appellant
who was shown to be driving the vehicle at the relevant
time, did not have valid driving license to drive the pick up
van" and further in paragraph 14 of the judgment it has
been held that "....the burden to prove that there was breach
of the contract of insurance was squarely placed on the
shoulders of the Insurance Company. It could not be said to
have been discharged by a mere question in cross
examination. The second appellant was under no obligation
to furnish evidence so as to enable the Insurance Company
to wriggle out its liability under the contract of insurance.
Further the RTA which issues the driving license keeps a
record of the licenses issued and renewed by it. The
14
Insurance Company could have got the evidence produced
to substantiate its allegation. Applying the test who would
fail if no evidence is led, the obvious answer is the
Insurance Company"
Laxmi Devi & Others vs Mohammad Tabbar & Another on 25 March, 2008
Further reliance has been placed on
decision reported in 2008 ACJ 1488 (Laxmi Devi & Ors.
Vs. Mohammad Tabbar & Anr.) in which the Tribunal took
the notional income as Rs.15,000/- per year but taking into
consideration the fact that the deceased was unskilled
labourer and it was assumed that at the time of unskilled
labourer could have earned Rs.100/- per day for the death in
the year 2004 and assessed the income of Rs.3,000/- per
month and hence the dependency was assessed Rs.2,000/-
per month for compensation and the finding of notional
income in case of working person is set aside.
Malti Devi And Ors. vs Sri Umesh Rawani And Ors. on 19 July, 2007
9. However, A.W. 1 and 2 have stated in their
evidence that the deceased was Thela driver and was
earning Rs.3,000/- per month and there is no cross-
examination on this point as well as there is evidence and
pleading that the victim was a Tela driver and was earning
Rs.3,000/- per month and hence the finding recorded by the
learned lower court that A.W. 1 and 2 are silent on the point
of profession and income of deceased is against the record.
However, Section 163A and Schedule II of the Motor
Vehicles Act confers to complete the income of Rs.15,000/-
per year in case the deceased was not an earning member or
disable and not for the person who are working and there
are clear evidence for his profession and income. There is
evidence to the effect that the deceased was a lorry driver
and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and there is no
challenge to that evidence as no cross examination on the
point by either party hence finding recorded by the Tribunal
that witnesses are silent on profession and earning are
beyond record is not sustainable and is set aside. However,
the income of the deceased has been assessed as
Rs.15,000/- per annum on the basis of the 2nd Schedule of
8
the Motor Vehicles Act. However, Rs.15,000/- per annum
as per 2nd Schedule can only be a person who is non earning
or disable of advanced age and this view is supported in
decision reported in 2008 ACJ 2184 (Malti Devi & Ors. V.
Umesh Rawani & Ors.) while interpreting Sub-section 3 of
Section 163-A as well as Clause 6(A) of the 2nd Schedule of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 specifically held that in case
of death or permanent disablement of non earning person
Rs.15,000/- per year as income of a person but the notional
income shall be taken only when the deceased or injured
was non earning person and not a earning person and the
court shall come to a finding regarding earning of the
deceased on the basis of the evidence as to what was the
earning of the deceased for determining the compensation.
Premkumari & Ors vs Prahlad Dev & Ors on 18 January, 2008
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, however,
contended that the appeal filed by the owner against the
impugned judgment in M.A. bearing No. 172 of 2007 was
dismissed for default. Hence the order of the Tribunal is
5
deemed to have been confirmed by the High Court. Now
the claimant cannot be allowed to challenge the impugned
order which has been confirmed by the High Court as the
appeal filed by owner against same order if the Tribunal is
dismissed for default. It has further been contended that if
the driving license has not been produced by the owner or
driver and it is incumbent on owner and driver to produce
the license and non filing of the same an adverse inference
requires to be drawn and the Insurance Company cannot be
held liable and for this proposition have relied upon a
decision reported in 1997 (7) SCC 558 (United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gian Chand & Ors.) as well as relied
upon decision reported in 2009 (8) SCC 785 (National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Parvathneni & Anr. ), 2008
(3) SCC 193 (Premkumari & Ors. Vs. Prahlad Dev & Ors.)
and 2006 (2) PLJR 306 (SC) (National Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai & Ors.).
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kusum Rai & Ors on 24 March, 2006
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, however,
contended that the appeal filed by the owner against the
impugned judgment in M.A. bearing No. 172 of 2007 was
dismissed for default. Hence the order of the Tribunal is
5
deemed to have been confirmed by the High Court. Now
the claimant cannot be allowed to challenge the impugned
order which has been confirmed by the High Court as the
appeal filed by owner against same order if the Tribunal is
dismissed for default. It has further been contended that if
the driving license has not been produced by the owner or
driver and it is incumbent on owner and driver to produce
the license and non filing of the same an adverse inference
requires to be drawn and the Insurance Company cannot be
held liable and for this proposition have relied upon a
decision reported in 1997 (7) SCC 558 (United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gian Chand & Ors.) as well as relied
upon decision reported in 2009 (8) SCC 785 (National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Parvathneni & Anr. ), 2008
(3) SCC 193 (Premkumari & Ors. Vs. Prahlad Dev & Ors.)
and 2006 (2) PLJR 306 (SC) (National Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai & Ors.).
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
In view of the decision of Sarala Verma Cases where
it has been held that 2009 (6) SCC 121 (Sarla Verma
(SMT) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.) if
the number of dependents is 2 to 3 then the deduction
requires to be 1/3rd and where the members of the
dependent family 4 to 6 then 1/4th, and if the number of
11
dependents family exceeds six then 1/5th. However, taking
into consideration the fact the dependents are four in
number, however, having regard to the fact that one is the
mother and the rest are children. Hence, taking into
consideration the three of the dependents are the children
and hence the deduction of 1/3rd will meet the ends of
justice and hence, deducting 1/3rd from the total income @
Rs.3,000/- per month then the income shall be Rs.2,000 x
12 x 18 then the total income assessed to be 4,32,000/-. The
loss of consortium Rs.5,000/-, Rs.2,000/- for funeral
expenses being added the total compensation comes to
Rs.4,39,000/- with 6% interest on the said amount from the
date of the petition to the date of realization of the amount.