Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)National Insurance Company Ltd vs Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors on 22 January, 2008
The view taken
with respect to the pre-amended position, before the
amendment of Form 4 on 28-3-2001 appears to be correct for
the reasons discussed by us. However, no change has been
brought about by insertion of Form 4 after 28-3-2001 with
respect to LMV category transport vehicle, thus, Annappa
Irappa Nesaria [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa
Nesaria, (2008) 3 SCC 464 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 945 : (2008) 2
SCC (Cri) 99] cannot be taken to be laying down correct legal
position applicable after 28-3-2001. With respect to the post-
amendment legal position, the decision cannot be said to be
laying down the correct law. However, this Court has rightly
opined in the aforesaid case that the person holding a licence
to drive "light motor vehicle" could have driven "light
passenger carriage vehicle" and "light goods carriage vehicle"
Mukund Dewangan vs Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd on 11 February, 2016
On the other hand, Mr. G.C. Jha, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent/insurance company submits that
the weight of the vehicle is required to be considered as to whether the
vehicle in question is a Light Motor Vehicle or a Medium Goods Vehicle or
a Goods Vehicle. He draws the attention of the Court to the Annexure-1
to the memo of appeal which is the Investigator's report and by way of
drawing the attention of the Court he submits that R.L.D.W has been
shown at 11,250 K.g., unladen weight 4870 K.g. and total both comes to
16120 K.g. He submits that when the weight of the vehicle is less, it
cannot be said that the vehicle in question was a Light Motor Vehicle and
the vehicle of the appellant was a Heavy Vehicle. He further submits that
it has also been held in the judgment relied by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental
Insurance Company Limited(supra). He further submits that so far the
permit is concerned, this is not required to be considered at this stage by
the Court considering that the appellant has also appeared in the
proceeding and thereafter he has left the proceeding and there is no due
diligence shown by the appellant and at this stage the said I.A. is fit to
be rejected. He further submits that the order by which the ex-parte
proceeding is proceeded against the appellant that is not under challenge
and in that view of the matter the appeal is not fit to be entertained in
the present case. By way of referring to the insurance policy, Mr. Jha, the
learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company submits that in
the policy the weight of the vehicle shown 16200 K.g. it was the Heavy
Vehicle.
Govt. Of Karnataka And Anr vs K.C.Subramanya And Ors on 16 September, 2013
Moreover, appeal was filed on
29.01.2015 whereas the said I.A. was filed on 24.01.2019. The said I.A.
was not filed along with appeal. Thus, due diligence is lacking in the case
in hand. A reference may be made to the case of State of Karnataka and
Another v. K.C. Subramanya and Others, (2014) 13 SCC 468. Paragraph
nos.4 and 5 of the said judgment are quoted below:
North Eastern Railway Administration, ... vs Bhagwan Das (D) By Lrs on 11 April, 2008
Mr. Laik, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that
for substantial justice, the Court can entertain the petition under Order
XLI Rule 27 C.P.C at the belated stage as has been held in the case of
North Eastern Railway, Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (Dead)
by LRs., (2008) 8 SCC 511. Moreover, the appeal was filed in the year
2015 whereas the I.A has been filed in the year 2019 for deciding the
appeal under order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C, the petition was required to be
first filed and get it agitated and obtained the order on that petition,
which has not been done in the case in hand and after admission of the
appeal, the I.A. has been filed. In the case relied by Mr. Laik, the learned
counsel for the appellant the due diligence was shown by the appellant of
that case and even the review petition was filed and during pendency of
that case two more applications were filed by the appellant of that case
in that case. Seeking permission towards adducing additional evidence in
support of the amendment petition as well as review petition, those facts
are lacking in the case in hand; the appellant after appearance has left
the proceeding and moreover, the I.A. has been filed after admission of
this appeal under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C., that judgment is not helping
the appellant.
Section 10 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
M/S United India Insurance Company ... vs Yashodha on 10 August, 2022
"DW 1 in his cross-examination admitted that offending
vehicle is authorised to transport 3500 kg goods. Further, in his
cross-examination it was stated that LMV means transport
vehicle of unladen weight which does not exceed 7500 kg. Ext.
D-2 at Column 12 clearly shows that the unladen weight of the
offending vehicle is 3500 kg. Thereby it is very much clear that
said unladen weight of the offending vehicle is much less than
7500 kg as admitted by DW 1 in his cross-examination which is
also the effect as defined in the Motor Vehicles Act. So when
the unladen weight of the offending vehicle is less than 7500
kg RW 1 driver who is having DL as per Ext. D-3 is certainly
authorised to drive the offending vehicle. The decision relied
upon by advocate for the petitioners at Serial No. 2 ruling
in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shivanna [(2000) 5 Kar LJ
473 (DB)] , our own Hon'ble High Court had clearly held that
where offending vehicle is weighing 4960 kg driven by a person
having DL to drive LMV, there is no breach of insurance policy,
as statute classifies vehicle weighing below 7500 kg as LMVs
and insurer is liable to satisfy award in respect of accident that
occurred when the vehicle was being driven by driver holding
such licence. So in view of the decision of the Division Bench of
4 M.A. No. 38 of 2015
our own Hon'ble High Court and also the decision of the
Supreme Court referred to at Sl. No. 1 by the advocate for the
petitioners it is very much clear that RW 1 is having valid DL as
per Ext. D-3 and the offending vehicle's unladen weight is 3500
kg is certainly was having effective and valid DL and so R-3 has
failed to prove Issue 3 and accordingly I answer the same in
the negative."
1