Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.27 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kokilaben Chandravadan & Ors on 1 April, 1987
But in the present case, the onus of the insurer has been discharged from the evidence of the insured himself. His insured took a positive defence stating that he was not the owner of the vehicle since he had already sold the same to 3rd party. This has not been proved. Secondly, he took a defence stating that the vehicle at the relevant time was driven by a driver Gaya Prasad (P.W. 2). This was proved to be false. There is no other material even to indicate that the vehicle was entrusted to the licensed driver on the date of the fatal accident. With these distinguishing features for the present case, we do not think that the ratio of the decision in Skandia Insurance Co. Limited v. Kokilaben Chandravadan AIR 1987 SC 1184 could be called to aid the appellant.
Section 149 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Mandar Madhav Tambe & Ors on 14 December, 1995
In New India Assurance Co. v. Mandar Madhav Tambe the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in case at the time of accident the driver was not holding the effective driving licence, the insurer cannot be fastened with the liability and a driver holding learner's licence cannot be regarded as a person having effective driving licence and in case the insurance policy makes it clear that in the event of an accident the insurer will be liable provided the vehicle was driven by a person holding valid driving licence or a permanent driving licence other than a learner licence, it cannot be fastened with any liability to indemnify the owner.
Kashiram Yadav & Anr vs Oriental Fire & Gen. Insurance Co. & Ors on 10 August, 1989
In view of the above, the matter is squarely covered so far as the onus of proof is concerned by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kashiram Yadav (supra), as in the instant case, the appellant who took the defence that he himself was driving the vehicle and when it was found that he himself did not have the valid driving licence on the date of the accident, he changed his version and brought the story of the vehicle being driven by one Phool Chandra Tiwari, driver, who was also found not having valid driving licence. The onus of proof of the insurer stood discharged by the evidence led by the insured himself.
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Swaran Singh & Ors on 5 January, 2004
The Hon'ble Apex Court re-examined the issue again in National Insurance Corporation Ltd. v. Kanti Devi and Ors. , wherein it followed the law laid down in Swaran Singh (supra) and held that in case at the time of accident the driver is found to be without having a valid licence, the insurer cannot be fastened with the liability of compensation. However, the insurers be asked to pay the compensation but it shall be entitled to recover the same from the insured.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Manjit Kaur And Ors on 5 January, 2004
18. A similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Limited v. Manjit Kaur and Ors. 2004 AIR SCW 704.
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Mrs. Kanti Devi & Ors on 9 May, 2005
The Hon'ble Apex Court re-examined the issue again in National Insurance Corporation Ltd. v. Kanti Devi and Ors. , wherein it followed the law laid down in Swaran Singh (supra) and held that in case at the time of accident the driver is found to be without having a valid licence, the insurer cannot be fastened with the liability of compensation. However, the insurers be asked to pay the compensation but it shall be entitled to recover the same from the insured.
Kalwa Devadattam And Two Others vs The Union Of India And Others on 19 April, 1963
In Kalwa Devadattam and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , the Apex Court has observed as under: