Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.18 seconds)
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Roshan Lal And Others on 23 July, 2020 cites

United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs K.M.Poonam & Ors on 18 February, 2011

5. If that be the position, this issue would not arise for consideration. It is exactly for this reason, the Tribunal has not framed any issue with regard to overloading. Otherwise also, issue with regard to the overloading of the offending vehicle and the liability of the insurer has been fairly settled by the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. K.M.Poonam, 2011 ACJ 917 SC. It is, thus, trite law that even if, passenger vehicle is overloaded, the Insurance Company is not totally absolved of its liability to indemnify the owner but its liability would 3 MA No.364/2017 be restricted to satisfy the highest awards qua the passengers within the permissible seating capacity of the vehicle and for rest of the passengers also the Insurance Company would pay the compensation in the first instance and shall have the recovery rights against the owner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 326 - A Kabir - Full Document

Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009

9. Be that as it may, in the absence of any contrary evidence on record and placing some reliance on the oral testimony of the claimant/respondent No.1, it would be in the fitness of things to take the income of the deceased as ₹ 4,000/- per month. There would be an addition of 40% to the assessed income towards loss of future prospects. The Tribunal has gone wrong by deducting 1/3rd from the assessed income of the deceased, whereas in the instant case deduction @ 50% is applicable, as admittedly, there is only one dependent. The multiplier used by the Tribunal 4 MA No.364/2017 is also not correct, because as per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the appropriate multiplier for the age group of persons 25-30 years is 17.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Roshan Lal & Anr. vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & ... on 12 December, 2012

1. This appeal by the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter 'the insurer') is directed against the award dated 10 th January, 2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramban (hereinafter 'the Tribunal') in Claim No.148/Claim titled, Roshan Lal v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and others, whereby respondent No.1 (hereinafter 'the claimant') has been held entitled to compensation of ₹ 6,09,400/- on account of death of Smt. Raj Wanti, wife of the claimant.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1