Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.21 seconds)
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. By Its ... vs Govindaraju S/O Dasappa And M. Vasudev on 9 August, 2007
cites
The Branch Manager, The New India ... vs Dharmanna S/O Mukind Bansode And Ors. on 19 April, 2006
11. In the instant case, such a procedure is not followed by the Insurance Company after the rejection of the application. When PW2 was examined, the counsel for the owner was not present to cross-examine Page 2040 the Doctor. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has permitted the Insurance Company lawyer to cross-examine the Doctor who was present before the Court. Mere granting permission to cross-examine a witness, the Insurance Company cannot contend that there is a deemed permission under Section 170 of the M.V. Act. A permission under Section 170 of the M.V. Act has to be passed by a Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and such application is required to be allowed after assessing the case objectively. A mere allowing the application without application of mind cannot be treated to be permission under Section 170 of the Act. Our reasoning is supported by a Judgment of this Court in the case of Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., v. Dharmanna and Ors. reported in ILR 2007 KAR 720, wherein one of us, namely Jawad Rahim, J, has stated that while considering the application under Section 170 of the M.V. Act, the Tribunal must objectively assess the material placed by the insurer and that the Tribunal has got a right to pass an order considering the circumstances enumerated in Clause (a) and (b) of Section 170 of the M.V. Act and if such circumstances are not available, the application under Section 170 of the Act has to be dismissed on merits.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
1