Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)
Vijayalakshmi vs Sivakumar on 17 March, 2021 cites

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Manorama Devi And Ors. on 20 February, 2008

The 2nd respondent also denied that the vehicle was insured with them and driver of the 1st respondent did not possess valid driving license and examined one Sivakumar as R.W.1 and marked four documents as Exs.R1 to R4. Ex.R2 is the notice issued to the 1st respondent. The Tribunal framed the 1st issue that whether the claim filed comes under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act or under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Tribunal accepting the case of the 2 nd respondent that the insurance taken by the 1st respondent does not cover the risk of deceased as vehicle was stationery and not plying on the road or in motion and relying on the judgment reported in 2012 ACJ 23 [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Manorama and others], dismissed the claim petition against the 2nd _____ 11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2062 of 2019 respondent. The Tribunal has not considered the case of the appellants and without properly appreciating the facts and materials on record, erroneously dismissed the claim petition against the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 6 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document
1