Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.23 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Chella Bharathamma & Ors on 21 September, 2004
In the case of "Challa Bharathamma (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para 12, has held that "as person without permit to ply a vehicle cannot be placed at a better pedestal vis-à-vis one who has a permit, but has violated any condition thereof. Plying of a vehicle without a permit is an infraction. Therefore, in terms of section 149 (2) defence is available to the insurer on that respect. The acceptability of the stand is a matter of adjudication. The question of policy being operative had no relevance for the issue regarding liability of insurer. High Court was, therefore, not justified in holding the insurer liable". Ultimately in that case the insurer was not held liable.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sony Cheriyan on 19 August, 1999
"4. Only submission advanced by Mr. Karan Mehra for petitioner was that the respondent was not having permit authorising the use of vehicle in question as transport vehicle on the date of accident. Permit was obtained later on from 25.7.2000 to 24.7.2011. Use of the vehicle on the date of accident, was thus, in violation of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short the Act) as also in breach of condition of insurance policy. Reliance was placed on the decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sony Cheriyan, 1986-99 CONSUMER 5083 (NS) : 1999 (2) CCC 42 (NS) : 1999 (6) SCC 451.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Dharam Raj on 26 May, 2005
In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Dharam Raj (Supra), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
Manoj Banerjee vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 21 January, 2013
8. Shri P.K. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (O.:.) has argued that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission. He further argued that the appellant (complainant) obtained insurance policy for private use of the vehicle in question, but the vehicle in question was being used as Motor cab /Taxi and no endorsement was obtained by the appellant (complainant) . Even appellant (complainant) did not inform the respondent (O.P.) regarding registration of the vehicle in question as motor cab/taxi purpose and the vehicle in question was being used in a public road without obtaining permit, which comes within fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is just, proper and reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Commission and the appeal of the appellant (complainant) is liable to be dismissed. He placed reliance on judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Challa Bharathamma and others, 2004 ACJ 2094; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sony Cheriyan 1986-99 CONSUMER 5083 (NS); judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Dharam Raj 1986-2007 CONSUMER 12098 (NS); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajesh Yadav II (2013) CPJ 398 (NC); Pal Singh vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1986-2013 CONSUMER 17532 (NS); Manoj Banerjee vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.& anr. I (2013) CPJ 543(NC); Sandeep Kumar vs. Iffco Tokio General Insruance Company Ltd. & Anr. II (2014) CPJ 505 (NC); Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shivakumara S. II (2014) CPJ 57 (NC); National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sanjeev Kumar IV (2013) CPJ 1 (NC); Seema Garg vs. Oriental Insruance Company Ltd. II (2014) CPJ 5 (NC) and Vimala & Anr. Aadil Khan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. IV (2013) CPJ 97 (NC), judgment of this Commission in The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pawan Kumar Agrawal 2009 (3) CPR 248; Dhaneshwar Sahu vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Sandeep And Others vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company ... on 1 October, 2014
8. Shri P.K. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (O.:.) has argued that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission. He further argued that the appellant (complainant) obtained insurance policy for private use of the vehicle in question, but the vehicle in question was being used as Motor cab /Taxi and no endorsement was obtained by the appellant (complainant) . Even appellant (complainant) did not inform the respondent (O.P.) regarding registration of the vehicle in question as motor cab/taxi purpose and the vehicle in question was being used in a public road without obtaining permit, which comes within fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is just, proper and reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Commission and the appeal of the appellant (complainant) is liable to be dismissed. He placed reliance on judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Challa Bharathamma and others, 2004 ACJ 2094; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sony Cheriyan 1986-99 CONSUMER 5083 (NS); judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Dharam Raj 1986-2007 CONSUMER 12098 (NS); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajesh Yadav II (2013) CPJ 398 (NC); Pal Singh vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1986-2013 CONSUMER 17532 (NS); Manoj Banerjee vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.& anr. I (2013) CPJ 543(NC); Sandeep Kumar vs. Iffco Tokio General Insruance Company Ltd. & Anr. II (2014) CPJ 505 (NC); Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shivakumara S. II (2014) CPJ 57 (NC); National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sanjeev Kumar IV (2013) CPJ 1 (NC); Seema Garg vs. Oriental Insruance Company Ltd. II (2014) CPJ 5 (NC) and Vimala & Anr. Aadil Khan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. IV (2013) CPJ 97 (NC), judgment of this Commission in The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pawan Kumar Agrawal 2009 (3) CPR 248; Dhaneshwar Sahu vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shivakumara S on 7 March, 2014
8. Shri P.K. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (O.:.) has argued that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission. He further argued that the appellant (complainant) obtained insurance policy for private use of the vehicle in question, but the vehicle in question was being used as Motor cab /Taxi and no endorsement was obtained by the appellant (complainant) . Even appellant (complainant) did not inform the respondent (O.P.) regarding registration of the vehicle in question as motor cab/taxi purpose and the vehicle in question was being used in a public road without obtaining permit, which comes within fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is just, proper and reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Commission and the appeal of the appellant (complainant) is liable to be dismissed. He placed reliance on judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Challa Bharathamma and others, 2004 ACJ 2094; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sony Cheriyan 1986-99 CONSUMER 5083 (NS); judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Dharam Raj 1986-2007 CONSUMER 12098 (NS); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajesh Yadav II (2013) CPJ 398 (NC); Pal Singh vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1986-2013 CONSUMER 17532 (NS); Manoj Banerjee vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.& anr. I (2013) CPJ 543(NC); Sandeep Kumar vs. Iffco Tokio General Insruance Company Ltd. & Anr. II (2014) CPJ 505 (NC); Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shivakumara S. II (2014) CPJ 57 (NC); National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sanjeev Kumar IV (2013) CPJ 1 (NC); Seema Garg vs. Oriental Insruance Company Ltd. II (2014) CPJ 5 (NC) and Vimala & Anr. Aadil Khan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. IV (2013) CPJ 97 (NC), judgment of this Commission in The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pawan Kumar Agrawal 2009 (3) CPR 248; Dhaneshwar Sahu vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Smt. Seema Garg vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., on 15 January, 2014
8. Shri P.K. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (O.:.) has argued that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission. He further argued that the appellant (complainant) obtained insurance policy for private use of the vehicle in question, but the vehicle in question was being used as Motor cab /Taxi and no endorsement was obtained by the appellant (complainant) . Even appellant (complainant) did not inform the respondent (O.P.) regarding registration of the vehicle in question as motor cab/taxi purpose and the vehicle in question was being used in a public road without obtaining permit, which comes within fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is just, proper and reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Commission and the appeal of the appellant (complainant) is liable to be dismissed. He placed reliance on judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Challa Bharathamma and others, 2004 ACJ 2094; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sony Cheriyan 1986-99 CONSUMER 5083 (NS); judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Dharam Raj 1986-2007 CONSUMER 12098 (NS); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajesh Yadav II (2013) CPJ 398 (NC); Pal Singh vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1986-2013 CONSUMER 17532 (NS); Manoj Banerjee vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.& anr. I (2013) CPJ 543(NC); Sandeep Kumar vs. Iffco Tokio General Insruance Company Ltd. & Anr. II (2014) CPJ 505 (NC); Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shivakumara S. II (2014) CPJ 57 (NC); National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sanjeev Kumar IV (2013) CPJ 1 (NC); Seema Garg vs. Oriental Insruance Company Ltd. II (2014) CPJ 5 (NC) and Vimala & Anr. Aadil Khan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. IV (2013) CPJ 97 (NC), judgment of this Commission in The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pawan Kumar Agrawal 2009 (3) CPR 248; Dhaneshwar Sahu vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Naresh Kumar Agrawal And Anr. on 3 October, 2006
8. Shri P.K. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (O.:.) has argued that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission. He further argued that the appellant (complainant) obtained insurance policy for private use of the vehicle in question, but the vehicle in question was being used as Motor cab /Taxi and no endorsement was obtained by the appellant (complainant) . Even appellant (complainant) did not inform the respondent (O.P.) regarding registration of the vehicle in question as motor cab/taxi purpose and the vehicle in question was being used in a public road without obtaining permit, which comes within fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is just, proper and reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Commission and the appeal of the appellant (complainant) is liable to be dismissed. He placed reliance on judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Challa Bharathamma and others, 2004 ACJ 2094; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sony Cheriyan 1986-99 CONSUMER 5083 (NS); judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Dharam Raj 1986-2007 CONSUMER 12098 (NS); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajesh Yadav II (2013) CPJ 398 (NC); Pal Singh vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1986-2013 CONSUMER 17532 (NS); Manoj Banerjee vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.& anr. I (2013) CPJ 543(NC); Sandeep Kumar vs. Iffco Tokio General Insruance Company Ltd. & Anr. II (2014) CPJ 505 (NC); Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shivakumara S. II (2014) CPJ 57 (NC); National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sanjeev Kumar IV (2013) CPJ 1 (NC); Seema Garg vs. Oriental Insruance Company Ltd. II (2014) CPJ 5 (NC) and Vimala & Anr. Aadil Khan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. IV (2013) CPJ 97 (NC), judgment of this Commission in The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pawan Kumar Agrawal 2009 (3) CPR 248; Dhaneshwar Sahu vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.