New India Assurance Compafiy vs Shri Satpal Singh And Ors on 2 December, 1999
In the result, for the foregoing reasons, following the judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh (supra), the appeals are dismissed. No costs.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.39 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 147 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 95 in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi & Ors vs Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd. & ... on 25 March, 1977
Having considered rival contentions of both the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh , after examining Section 95 of the old Act and also Section 147 of the new Act, and after considering its judgments in Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. 1977 ACJ 343 (SC) and Mallawwa's case, , observed that under the new Act, an insurance policy covering third party risk is not required to exclude gratuitous passengers in a vehicle, no matter that the vehicle is of any type or class. Hence the decisions rendered under the old Act vis-a-vis gratuitous passengers are of no avail while considering the liability of Insurance Company in respect of any accident which occurred or would occur after the new Act came into force.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Rama Devi And Ors. on 8 July, 1999
10. His Lordship Justice N.V. Ramana also referred to a Division Bench judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rama Devi and a judgment of Orissa High Court in Jayanti Sahu v. Rama Chandra Behera and a judgment of the Madras High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. A. Govindan and a Full Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajaya kumar and took a view that under Section 147(1)(b)(i), even before the amendment by Act 54 of 1994 (with effect from 14.11.1994), the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation even for death or bodily injury to the owners of goods travelling in a goods vehicle.
United India Insurance Company Ltd, ... vs A. Govindan And Another on 21 January, 2000
10. His Lordship Justice N.V. Ramana also referred to a Division Bench judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rama Devi and a judgment of Orissa High Court in Jayanti Sahu v. Rama Chandra Behera and a judgment of the Madras High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. A. Govindan and a Full Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajaya kumar and took a view that under Section 147(1)(b)(i), even before the amendment by Act 54 of 1994 (with effect from 14.11.1994), the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation even for death or bodily injury to the owners of goods travelling in a goods vehicle.
State Of Orissa vs Dandasi Sahu on 22 July, 1988
In my considered opinion, when a judgment of the Supreme Court which is binding on the High Court, is referred to a Larger Bench by a subsequent Bench of equal strength, the same does not take away the binding effect of the earlier Apex Court judgment, A reference may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dandasi Sahu and State of Rajasthan v. R.S. Sharma and Co. .
State Of Rajasthan vs R.S. Sharma & Co on 16 August, 1988
17. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, the claims arising out of death or injury need expeditious disposal. In these matters, the accident occurred in the year 1992. Therefore, the cases will not brook further delay, especially when there is binding principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court.