Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.21 seconds)Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Anita Devi & Ors. on 10 May, 2011
15. The judgment of this Court in Anita Devi &
Ors.(supra) which is in consonance with the law laid down
in Kodala (supra), Deepal Girishbhai Soni (supra) and
Meena Variyal (supra) shall be taken as a binding
precedent."
Section 3 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Minu B. Mehta And Another vs Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan And ... on 28 January, 1977
"27. We think that the law laid down in Minu B.
Mehta and Anr. v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan
and Anr. (supra) was accepted by the legislature
while enacting the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by
introducing Section 163-A of the Act providing for
payment of compensation notwithstanding anything
contained in the Act or in any other law for the time
being in force that the owner of a motor vehicle or
the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay in the
case of death or permanent disablement due to
accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle,
compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule,
to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be,
and in a claim made under Sub-section (1) of Section
163-A of the Act, the claimant shall not be required
to plead or establish that the death or permanent
disablement in respect of which the claim has been
made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or
default of the owner of the vehicle concerned.
Therefore, the victim of an accident or his
dependants have an option either to proceed under
Section 166 of the Act or under Section 163-A of the
Act. Once they approach the Tribunal under Section
MAC APP. No.228/2010 Page 9 of 17
166 of the Act, they have necessarily to take upon
themselves the burden of establishing the negligence
of the driver or owner of the vehicle concerned. But if
they proceed under Section 163-A of the Act, the
compensation will be awarded in terms of the
Schedule without calling upon the victim or his
dependants to establish any negligence or default on
the part of the owner of the vehicle or the driver of
the vehicle."
United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Lehru And Ors on 28 February, 2003
The postman is not concerned with the postal receipt
but is to deliver the postal envelop as per the address
mentioned therein. The address on the notice as stated earlier
is complete and, therefore, a presumption could be raised under
Section 114 (f) of the Evidence Act. It is well settled that the
onus to prove that there is willful breach on the part of the
insured is on the insurer. (United India Insurance Company
Ltd. v. Lehru & Ors, (2003) 3 SCC 338 and National Insurance
MAC APP. No.228/2010 Page 12 of 17
Company Limited v. Swaran Singh & Ors, (2004) 3 SCC 297).
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Swaran Singh & Ors on 5 January, 2004
The postman is not concerned with the postal receipt
but is to deliver the postal envelop as per the address
mentioned therein. The address on the notice as stated earlier
is complete and, therefore, a presumption could be raised under
Section 114 (f) of the Evidence Act. It is well settled that the
onus to prove that there is willful breach on the part of the
insured is on the insurer. (United India Insurance Company
Ltd. v. Lehru & Ors, (2003) 3 SCC 338 and National Insurance
MAC APP. No.228/2010 Page 12 of 17
Company Limited v. Swaran Singh & Ors, (2004) 3 SCC 297).