Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)
Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Shayamwati And Ors on 29 August, 2022 cites

Thomas Rajan vs Philip John And Ors. on 28 November, 1981

The Kerala High Court in the case of Rajan (supra) and Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Pinnaboyina Chittamma have dealt with the issue and held that a place where the public has access can always be treated as a public place in view of Section 2(34) of the Act of 1988. Hence, the Tribunal has not committed any error by holding that place of occurrence was a public place and the provisions of the Act of 1988 were attracted.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Shayamwati And Ors on 9 November, 2021

S.B. CMA No. 2872/2018 (Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Shayamwati and Ors.) Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that instant case does not fall within the purview of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act of 1988') as the accident has not occurred within the public place. Counsel submits that the accident has occurred in the factory premises of Hema Automotive Pvt. Ltd. when the driver of the crane was uplifting the beam from the crane. The beam fell down on the deceased and he sustained certain injuries and died thereafter. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the provisions of the Act of 1988 are not applicable and the claim petition filed by the claimants was not maintainable. Even then the Tribunal has entertained the same and passed the impugned order. Counsel further submits that the accident occurred on 12.03.2014 and the FIR has been lodged after a long lapse of time i.e. on 14.05.2014. Counsel submits that initially a Murg Report was registered in which there was no such mention that the incident has occurred because of negligence of the driver of the crane. Counsel submits that after investigation, (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 06:19:57 AM) (4 of 9) [CMA-2872/2018] charge-sheet was submitted against the driver for the offence under Section 304A IPC. Hence, there was no negligence on the part of the driver, so, the claim petition filed by the claimants was not maintainable. Even then the Tribunal has considered all these material facts and entertained the claim petition and directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove, interference of this Court is warranted.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - A K Gaur - Full Document
1