Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.20 seconds)Section 147 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
B.V. Nagaraju vs M/S. Oriental Insurance Co. ... on 20 May, 1996
In the light of the established factual position, I hold that the insurance company is bound to cover risk of hirer/agent or the employee travelling in any goods vehicle as passenger carried for reason or by reason of or in pursuance of contract of employment. Further, as observed by Their Lordships in B.V. Nagarajau v. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., , that breach of crying humans in goods vehicle more than the number permitted in terms of insurance policy cannot be said to be such fundamental breach so as to offer ground to the insurer to deny indemnification. I have already observed that it is not the case of the owner or the insurance company that the persons travelling in the lorry along with their goods/articles were responsible for the accident. The purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act is to compensate a person who has suffered injury. In case of death, the heirs of the deceased have to be provided some means of subsistence. Keeping in view of the nature of the Statute, the provisions have to be liberally construed.
Kanniappa Nadar vs Jayapandi And Others on 13 December, 1996
K. Govindarajan, J., after referring to the Division Bench decision in Kanniappa Nadar v. Jayapandi and 10 others, and after holding that the insurance company has not discharged its burden of establishing that the insured himself is guilty of committing breach of contract of insurance, held that the insurance company cannot absolve its liability from paying the compensation. The facts
and the ultimate conclusion of the learned Judge is not helpful to the appellant's case and this also supports the stand of the respondents-claimants.
C.K. Seetharam vs Jayalakshmamma And Ors. on 4 April, 1997
In C.K. Seetaram v. Jayalakshmamma, 1998 (II) ACC 7, a learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court has upheld the order of the Tribunal indirecting the insurance company to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased who accompanied with the goods in a lorry and died due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry.
New India Assurance Compafiy vs Shri Satpal Singh And Ors on 2 December, 1999
In a latest decision, the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company v. Shri Satpal Singh and others, 1999 (10) Supreme 87, after referring to Section 147(1) of the Act, has held in the following manner:-
Section 96 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 95 in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
Sohan Lal Passi vs P. Sesh Reddy & Ors on 17 July, 1996
The said section is similar to Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. After gaining experience and taking note of the difficulties experienced, certain provisions have been added in the new Act. Now I shall consider various decisions on these provisions and thereafter, the factual position in these cases. Though the learned counsel has relied on a decision reported in
Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy and others, , the said judgment is not helpful to the stand of the Insurance Company, on the other hand, it supports the claim made by the respondents herein. In that case, the question considered by Their Lordships was whether the Insurance Company can be absolved of its liability to pay the compensation in a case where the owner of the vehicle had got the vehicle insured, but the accident took place when it was being driven by a person not holding the driving licence. The said case arise when the Motor Vehicles Act, 139 was in force.