Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.19 seconds)Section 165 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956
Section 173 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Santosh Kumar on 10 August, 2000
9. Learned Counsel would submit that if the language enjoined in the said provision is read in an apposite manner it would reveal that the claims are to be adjudicated by the Tribunal in respect of the compensation pertaining to the accident involving the death or bodily injuries to a person or of a third party. It is urged by him that when the owner cannot be a third party the Tribunal would be bereft of jurisdiction to take up the matter. To bolster the aforesaid submission he has commended us to the decision rendered in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar , wherein a learned Single Judge lanceted the award passed by the Tribunal whereby it had entertained an application of an owner/insured in respect of damage of his own vehicle in the accident.
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., ... vs P.N. Vijaywargiya And Ors. on 18 October, 1991
The Division Bench in the case of P.N. Vijaiwargiya (supra), has also opined that a claim in respect of an accident involving death relating to insured is tenable before the Tribunal. Section 165 (1) of the Act uses the word 'injury to a persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles'. Section 147 of the Act covers statutory liability though it does not extend to the owner of a vehicle. But, a significant one, an owner of the vehicle can put forth a claim in case it is specifically covered by the policy. In the case at hand, it is patent, personal insurance policy was taken by the owner to cover his own risk. The liability is limited to Rs. 1,00,000/-. We fail to fathom why the Accident Claims Tribunal cannot entertain the same and the legal representatives should be asked to approach any other legal forum. Thus, the issue of maintainability raised by Mr. Nair is not acceptable and we have no hesitation in repelling the same.
Hemlata Sahu And Ors. vs Ramadhar And Anr. on 19 March, 1999
In this context we may refer with profit to the decision rendered in the case of Hemlata Sahu and Ors. v. Ramadhar and Anr. 1992 (2) MPLJ 231, wherein this Court speaking through Mr. A.K. Mathur, the learned Chief Justice (as His Lordship then was) has held thus: