Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)
Icici Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd vs Mumtazbibi Saukat Mohmmed Pathan & 8 on 10 April, 2014 cites

Nagashetty vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 17 August, 2001

It was further submitted that in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nagashetty v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the premium had also been paid in respect of the trailer and hence, the insurance policy covered the risk whereas in the facts of the present case, the risk is not covered. It was accordingly urged that the matter requires consideration and the appeal deserved to be admitted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 121 - S N Variava - Full Document

M/S Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd vs State Of Karnataka & Others on 1 September, 2005

3. Ms. Vidhi Bhatt, learned advocate for the appellant vehemently assailed the impugned award by submitting that at the time when the accident occurred, the tractor had a trolley attached to it. It was submitted that when a trolley is attached to a tractor, it assumes the character of a goods vehicle and hence, the driver is required to have a non- transport licence for the purpose of driving such vehicle. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and others, 2006 ACJ 1, for the proposition that even though a trailer is drawn by a motor vehicle which by itself being a motor vehicle, the tractor-trailer would constitute a goods carriage and accordingly, is a transport vehicle. It was submitted that it is an admitted position that the driver of the truck was holding a licence only for driving a tractor which was a non-transport licence and as such, he was not competent to drive a transport vehicle. It was pointed out that the driving Page 2 of 9 C/FA/33/2014 ORDER licence had been issued for a period of 20 years, and hence in view of the provisions of section 14 of the Act, the licence evidently was a non-transport licence and the moment a trailer was attached to the tractor, it became a goods vehicle and, therefore, a transport vehicle, and the driver holding a non- transport licence was not competent to drive the same. It was further submitted that the insurance policy covered only the tractor and no policy for the trailer had been obtained and hence, the insurance company is not liable since the trailer was not insured. It was submitted that in relation to a goods vehicle, a special permit is required to be obtained under section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act which was not done in the present case and so also, there is a breach of the conditions of insurance policy and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in holding the insurance company liable to indemnify the owner of the tractor in respect of liability incurred by him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 108 - Full Document

State Of Karnataka vs K. Gopalakrishna Shenoy & Anr on 15 July, 1987

Taxation is governed by a separate Code which in the said case happened to be the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 and as held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. K. Gopalakrishna Shenoy, 1987 (3) JT 67, the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Taxation Act have to be construed on their own force and not with reference to the provisions of registration or fitness certificate under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thus, it is apparent that the Supreme Court in the above decision has drawn a distinction between the construction which is required to be put for categorization of a vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act in relation to a case under the Motor Vehicles Act and that under Page 7 of 9 C/FA/33/2014 ORDER a taxation statute. In any case, the scope of the proceedings in the above case was in relation to the categorization of vehicles in the context of a taxation statute which has no bearing when it comes to the categorization of a vehicle for the purposes of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 213 - A P Sen - Full Document
1