Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.70 seconds)
Jitendra Dewangan vs D.M., The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. on 1 April, 2015 cites

Jai Parkash Goyal vs The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 11 March, 2010

In Jai Prakash Goyal vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra), Hon'ble National Commission "Driving licence - Validity of - driving vehicle at accident time holding two licences - Holding of two licences prohibited under law - First licence submitted on record found fake - Second licence invalid for all practical purposes - Vehicle overloaded at accident time - Driver holding two licences within knowledge of petitioner - Violation of policy conditions and provisions of law proved - Insurance Company not liable to indemnify the loss."
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 5 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

M/S Premier Shield Pvt Ltd vs Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd on 8 December, 2014

In Premier Shield Pvt. Ltd. vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra), Hon'ble National Commission observed that "Driver employed by petitioner was having two driving licences at relevant time. Offence committed under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Driving licence not valid and effective." In para 14, it has further been observed that "It is an admitted fact, that the driver employed by the petitioner was having two driving licences at the relevant time. We fail to understand as to how a person can have two different driving licences issued by two different transport authorities at one time".
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Smt. Seema Garg vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., on 15 January, 2014

8. Shri P.K. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (O.P.) has argued that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission. He further argued that the driver Minesh Kumar was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question which is light goods vehicle. He further argued that according to the appellant (complainant) the driver Minesh Kumar was having two driving licences at the relevant time, therefore, driver Minesh Kumar committed offence under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and he was not having valid and effective driving licence, therefore, the respondent (O.P.) has rightly repudiated the claim of the appellant (complainant). The impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, is reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Commission. He further argued that if a fake licence is renewed, it will still remain fake. He placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Premier Shield Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., IV (2014) CPJ 325 (NC); Jai Prakash Goyal vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd, II (2010) CPJ 183 (NC); Reliance General Insurance Co. Ld. Vs. Shivakumara S. II (2014) CPJ 57 (NC); National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar; IV (2013) CPJ 1 (NC); Seema Garg vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. II (2014) CPJ 5 (NC); Vimla & Anr. Vs. Aadil Khan, IV (2013) CPJ 97 (NC); Sandeep Kumar //7 // vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., II (2014) CPJ 505 (NC).
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 1 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shivakumara S on 7 March, 2014

8. Shri P.K. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (O.P.) has argued that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission. He further argued that the driver Minesh Kumar was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question which is light goods vehicle. He further argued that according to the appellant (complainant) the driver Minesh Kumar was having two driving licences at the relevant time, therefore, driver Minesh Kumar committed offence under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and he was not having valid and effective driving licence, therefore, the respondent (O.P.) has rightly repudiated the claim of the appellant (complainant). The impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, is reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Commission. He further argued that if a fake licence is renewed, it will still remain fake. He placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Premier Shield Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., IV (2014) CPJ 325 (NC); Jai Prakash Goyal vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd, II (2010) CPJ 183 (NC); Reliance General Insurance Co. Ld. Vs. Shivakumara S. II (2014) CPJ 57 (NC); National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar; IV (2013) CPJ 1 (NC); Seema Garg vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. II (2014) CPJ 5 (NC); Vimla & Anr. Vs. Aadil Khan, IV (2013) CPJ 97 (NC); Sandeep Kumar //7 // vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., II (2014) CPJ 505 (NC).
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 Next