Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.38 seconds)
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd vs Ramesh Rani And Others on 13 January, 2014 cites

The New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Surinder Kaur Widow Of Amarjit Singh Son ... on 1 September, 2010

3. On an issue of liability it must be noticed that the tractor is a Light Motor Vehicle and as per the definition under Section 2 (44) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 it is not constructed to carry any load other than equipment used for the purpose. A tractor FAO No. 2697 of 2010 2 cannot carry any passenger except when a trolley is attached and the persons travelling in the trolley are the load men. In such an event the Insurance Company will provide indemnity for the owner of the tractor. In this case the deceased has a gratuitous travelling in a tractor and there was no compulsion for undertaking the coverage for such a passenger. This point has been specifically dealt with by this Court in New India Asssurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Surinder Kaur in FAO NO. 635 of 2005 decided on 1.9.2010.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 9 - K Kannan - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Vedwati & Ors on 20 February, 2007

This judgment has been rendered by making reference to the judgments of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vedwati 2007 (9) SCC 486 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chinamma and others (2004) 8 SCC 697. The Court has also dealt with in paras 2 and 7 the different situations where the labourer travelling in a trolley would have a full insurance cover, unlike an ordinary traveller on the mudguard of the tractor or elsewhere. Having regard to a specific point raised and considered by this court, I do not feel necessary to refer to the other judgments referred by the counsel of Delhi High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court. I will choose to follow this Court's own ruling by due consideration of the relevant judgments of the Supreme Court and would find the Insurance Company could not have been made liable but liability ought to be only on the owner and driver. The indemnity provided to the owner and driver was erroneous.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 132 - A Pasayat - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs V. Chinnamma & Ors on 25 August, 2004

This judgment has been rendered by making reference to the judgments of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vedwati 2007 (9) SCC 486 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chinamma and others (2004) 8 SCC 697. The Court has also dealt with in paras 2 and 7 the different situations where the labourer travelling in a trolley would have a full insurance cover, unlike an ordinary traveller on the mudguard of the tractor or elsewhere. Having regard to a specific point raised and considered by this court, I do not feel necessary to refer to the other judgments referred by the counsel of Delhi High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court. I will choose to follow this Court's own ruling by due consideration of the relevant judgments of the Supreme Court and would find the Insurance Company could not have been made liable but liability ought to be only on the owner and driver. The indemnity provided to the owner and driver was erroneous.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 185 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr on 2 April, 2013

5. As regards the quantum, I have also seen whether the assessment was proper. The deceased was said to be 17 years and 8 months and the Tribunal accepted the age as such. Counsel for the Insurance Company points out that the the postmortem report revealed that he was 15 years of age. Counsel would therefore state that only 15 multiplier must have been taken in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Reshma Kumari and others Vs. Madan Mohan 2013 9 SCC 65 . In this case even the Insurance Company has in its grounds of appeal taken the age only to be 17/18 and if the mother was stating the age of her son to be 17 ½ years (as I see) I will take that the mother knew the age better than the doctor who issued the postmortem certificate. The income has been taken as `3,000/- and the Court has adopted a multiplier of 16 which I believe again to be appropriate multiplier under the given circumstances. The total compensation of `4,24,000/- would not require to be modified. The excess amount over `3 lacs and interest which has been claimed already by the claimants shall be recovered only against the owner of the vehicle and not against the insurer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 2700 - R M Lodha - Full Document
1