Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)The Factories Act, 1948
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Swaran Singh & Ors on 5 January, 2004
It is required to be noted that the owner of the vehicle
has been called as a witness at the instance of the appellant-
Insurance Company before the Tribunal. In cross-examination
at the instance of the claimant, the owner has admitted the
fact that when his friend had borrowed the vehicle, he had
assured that the deceased is well versed with driving of
tractor as he is driving the same for a long period and is
holding license. As against the aforesaid evidence of the
owner of the insured vehicle, despite sufficient opportunity
being granted to the appellant- Insurance Company, no
further witness or evidence has been led on record to
contradict the aforesaid evidence of the owner of the insured
vehicle. Considering the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh (supra), with
such evidence on record, in my view, the Tribunal has rightly
noted that the Insurance Company has failed to discharge its
burden to prove its defense beyond reasonable doubt.
Valiben Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) Wd/O ... vs Kandla Dock Labour Board on 27 August, 2021
6. Mr. Hakim, learned advocate appearing for respondent
Nos. 1.1 to 1.3- original claimants has vehemently objected to
the submissions made by the learned advocate for the
appellant -Insurance Company. The attention of this Court
was invited to the findings and reasons assigned by the
Page 8 of 20
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 02:43:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1129/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
Tribunal. According to him, the Tribunal has rightly
appreciated the evidence on record to arrive at a finding that
the risk of the driver/cleaner was covered, in view of the fact
that an additional premium was paid. Referring to the
schedule of premium in the policy produced on record at
Exhibit 40, the learned advocate had submitted that an
additional premium amount of Rs.50/- was paid under the
head of legal liability towards risk coverage of the paid driver/
cleaner (IMT 28). It was emphasized that the policy was in
reference to use of commercial vehicle, whereby the insured
vehicle was permitted to be hired for agricultural purposes.
The deceased was engaged as a driver by the borrower of the
insured vehicle from the insurer and therefore, the Insurance
Company has rightly been held liable to pay the amount of
compensation. As regards the negligence of the driver
towards the accident and he being treated as a tortfeasor and
therefore being not entitled to any compensation is
concerned, learned advocate had placed reliance upon the
decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Valiben
Laxmanbhai Thakore (Koli) widow of late Laxmanbhai
Ramsinghbhai Thakore (Koli) and others vs. Kandla
Dock Labour Board and another, reported in 2022(1) GLR
Page 9 of 20
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 02:43:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1129/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
Ningamma & Anr vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd on 13 May, 2009
11. It would be appropriate to revisit the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ningamma vs. United
India Insurance Company Limited reported in (2009) 13
SCC 710. In para 20, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while
affirming the proposition that in proceedings under Section
163 A person like deceased would step into the shoes of the
owners, the legal representatives could not claim
compensation, has also explore the alternative remedy of
claim under Section 166 of the Act, 1988. The Hon'ble Court
has touched on the relevant criteria to be bear in mind while
entertaining such claim petition under Section 166. The Court
has observed as under:
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 173 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Kaminiben vs The Oriental Insurance Company Limited on 25 September, 2023
"20. It was held in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd case that
Section 163-A of the MVA cannot be said to have any
application in respect of an accident wherein the owner of
the motor vehicle himself is involved. The decision further
held that the question is no longer res integra. The
liability under section 163-A of the MVA is on the owner
of the vehicle. So a person cannot be both, a claimant as
Page 15 of 20
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Wed Apr 22 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 23 02:43:48 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1129/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/04/2026
undefined
also a recipient, with respect to claim. Therefore, the
heirs of the deceased could not have maintained a claim
in terms of Section 163-A of the MVA.
Hind Samachar Ltd. (Delhi Unit) vs National Insurance Company Ltd. And ... on 14 December, 2017
Reliance
was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Hind Samachar Limited (Delhi Unit) vs.
National Insurance Company Limited and others
reported in 2025 (O) AIJEL SC 75972. Referring to the
aforesaid decision, the learned advocate has submitted that in
fact the mere fact that the assessment was made by the owner
of the vehicle with regard to verifying the driver's credentials,
it was not mandated to verify the authenticity of the driving
license beyond what is presented by a prospective driver. The
Court, therefore, held that there was no breach established
against the owner regarding employment practices or
verification processes. Consequently, the Court quashed and
set aside the order of the High Court imposing the liability on
the owner of the insured vehicle to pay the amount of
compensation, instead directing the Insurance Company to
fulfill its liability. The learned advocate has therefore urged
this Court to dismiss the appeal.
1