Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.18 seconds)R.B. Moondra And Co. vs Mst. Bhanwari And Anr. on 22 April, 1969
Therefore, I am unable to agree with the interpretation tried to be put forth on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant that the widow alone, if she is alive, is entitled to file the claim petition even though she may have remarried, as held in the Rajasthan decision, R. B. Moondra and Co. v. Mst. Bhanwari, AIR 1970 Raj 111, which does not lay down the law that the widow alone, in preference to the other dependants, is entitled to file the petition.
Bishan Devi & Ors vs Sirbaksh Singh & Anr on 20 August, 1979
11. This submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, so far as the legal position is concerned, no doubt, has great force. But as held in the decision in Bishan Devi v. Sirbaksh Singh, AIR 1979 SC 1862 ; [1981] 51 Comp Cas 128 (SC), it is for the insurer to establish that the person driving the vehicle was not properly licensed on the date of the accident which admittedly took place on June 10, 1975, as the learner's licence, exhibit P-2, is dated April 5, 1975, and there is nothing on record to indicate that even on the date of the accident the deceased had only a learner's licence. Therefore, the appellant, on whom the burden lay, having failed to discharge the same by adducing the necessary evidence, I am of opinion, that it has not been satisfactorily established in the present case that the deceased did not hold a valid effective licence on the date of the accident.
Section 95 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 96 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 2 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 [Entire Act]
Northern Bengal Jute Trading Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax. on 25 January, 1967
10. He, therefore, contended that under the terms of the policy, exhibit P-3, the insurance company can be held liable provided that the person driving holds a licence to drive the vehicle or has held and is not disqualified in holding or obtaining such licence, even though under the provisions of the said policy the driver may include the insured and any other person provided he is in the insured's employ and is driving on his order or with his permission. He, therefore, submitted that even though under the terms of the said policy the appellant insurance company has agreed to indemnify the employer, in consideration of the payment of additional premium under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, still that condition has to be read as a whole inasmuch as it is only in the case of an accident to a vehicle driven by a driver having an effective driving licence that the
insurance company can be held liable as mentioned in the insurance policy. He, therefore, urged that on record there being only the learner's licence, exhibit P-2, and not an effective driving licence, the insurance company is absolved from its liability under the terms of the contract and in support of this submission he placed reliance, apart from the evidence of the employer, D.W. 6, Madhusudan (respondent No. 6) on the decisions in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Devkaran [1978] ACJ 502 (MP); Anand Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hasanali [1975] ACJ 471 (MP) and Ambujam v. Hindustan Ideal Insurance Co. [1980] 50 Comp Cas 404 ; [1981] ACJ 175 (Mad), though he did not dispute that as held in Northern India Insurance Co. v. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation [1973] ACJ 428 (MP), the defences available to the insurance company under the Workmen's Compensation Act are the same as provided in Sections 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act and no other. It was, therefore, contended that on this ground also, no award could be passed against the appellant, insurance company, as they are not liable to indemnify the insured in the facts and circumstances of this case as pointed out above.
1