Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Ramakrishnan on 26 August, 2025 cites

Rukmani And Ors. vs New India Assurance Co. And Ors. on 14 August, 1997

In Rukmani (Supra), the insurer was absolved from liability in respect of the claim for compensation by the High Court on the ground that the driver had no valid license. The High Court noted that the burden of the insurer under Section 96(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, had been discharged and the breach proved. The Apex Court noticed that the only piece of evidence which the insurer produced in support of the plea was the testimony of the Inspector of Police, who had investigated the accident. The Officer, when examined as PW1 stated in his examination-in-chief that his enquiries revealed that the first M.A.C.A.No.767 of 2020 12 2025:KER:64385 respondent/driver had not produced the driving license and that the first respondent even after his demand had not submitted the license as he was not having one. In the cross examination, he deposed that it was the Inspector of Motor Vehicles who was required to check whether there was license and that he had not informed the Inspector of Motor Vehicles that the first respondent was not having a license as he thought it was unnecessary. This evidence was held to be insufficient to discharge the burden cast on the insurer as they had not even taken steps to summon the driver of the vehicle or summon records from the Road Transport Authority. In the said circumstances it was held that the insurer had not discharged the burden upon it under Section 96(2)(b)(ii) of the 1939 Act and hence the judgment of the High Court was set aside and the order of the Tribunal was restored.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 89 - Full Document

G. Nagendra Devi And 3 Others vs Y. Mosses And 2 Others on 26 June, 2001

In addition to the dictum in Narchinva V. Kamat (Supra), the learned counsel for the claim petitioners rely on the dictum of the Apex Court in Rukmani v. New India Assurance Company, CDJ 1997 SC 1082 as well as the judgments of other High Courts, namely, G.Nagendra Devi v. Y.Mosses, CDJ 2001 MHC 742 ; National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nirabjit Kaur, CDJ 2008 DHC 1116 ; an unreported decision of the High Court of Rajasthan dated 03/10/2012 in Misc.Appeal.No.566/2006 (Mangu v. Surya Prakash) ; Bajaj M.A.C.A.No.767 of 2020 11 2025:KER:64385 Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Pune v. Poomani, CDJ 2024 MHC 2351 ; an unreported decision of the High Court of Karnataka dated 23/09/2024 in Misc.First Appeal No.5750 of 2016 (The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Ramakrishna M.).
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 8 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Mangu & Anr vs Surya Prakash & Anr on 3 October, 2012

In addition to the dictum in Narchinva V. Kamat (Supra), the learned counsel for the claim petitioners rely on the dictum of the Apex Court in Rukmani v. New India Assurance Company, CDJ 1997 SC 1082 as well as the judgments of other High Courts, namely, G.Nagendra Devi v. Y.Mosses, CDJ 2001 MHC 742 ; National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nirabjit Kaur, CDJ 2008 DHC 1116 ; an unreported decision of the High Court of Rajasthan dated 03/10/2012 in Misc.Appeal.No.566/2006 (Mangu v. Surya Prakash) ; Bajaj M.A.C.A.No.767 of 2020 11 2025:KER:64385 Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Pune v. Poomani, CDJ 2024 MHC 2351 ; an unreported decision of the High Court of Karnataka dated 23/09/2024 in Misc.First Appeal No.5750 of 2016 (The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Ramakrishna M.).
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next