Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
The Branch Manager vs /
cites
Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 173 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Dhanraj vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 24 September, 2004
(vi) That in the case of Dhanraj vs. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. Reported in (2004) 8 SCC 553, it is
held by this Court that an insurance policy covers the
liability incurred by the insured in respect of death of or
bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the
goods or his authorized representative) carried in the
vehicle or damage to any property of a third party
caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. It is
further held that Section 147 does not require an
insurance company to assume risk for death or bodily
11/15
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.669 of 2015
& M.P.No.1 of 2015
injury to the owner of the vehicle.
Section 147 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Kaliya Pillai on 30 October, 2002
In Oriental Insurance Company - vs - Kaliya Pillai reported in
2003 ACJ 1021, on 30 October, 2002, the Division Bench of the Madras High
Court, held that,
“The deceased was none-else than the driver of the
tractor and the trailer. In such a circumstance, he being
a tort-feasor and responsible for the accident, he cannot
claim compensation for the injuries, likewise his legal
heirs also are not entitled for compensation from the
Insurance company by invoking the provisions of the
Motor vehicles Act. In this regard, it is relevant to refer
6/15
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.669 of 2015
& M.P.No.1 of 2015
a Division Bench decision of this Court New India
Assurance Company Ltd., -vs- Meenal, reported in
1993 A.C.J. 522. After referring to the earlier decisions
of this Court and the other High Courts as well as the
Supreme Court, the Division Bench (K. Venkataswamy
and A. Abdul Hadi, JJ) has held that inasmuch as the
deceased was himself a tort-feasor, hence the claimants
cannot maintain the claim petition for any compensation
from the owner of the vehicle; consequently then cannot
have any claim against the insurance company. Similar
view has been reiterated by the subsequent Division
Bench of this Court (consisting of A. Abdul Hadi, J. and
myself (P. Sathasivam, J.)
Section 165 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 163 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Ningamma & Anr vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd on 13 May, 2009
Therefore, applying the law laid
down by this Court in the case of Ningamma (supra),
and as the deceased has stepped into the shoes of the
owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.RJ 02 SA
7811, as rightly held by the High Court, the claim
petition under Section 163A of the Act against the owner
and insurance company of the vehicle bearing
registration No.RJ 02 SA 7811 shall not be
maintainable.”
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Sadanand Mukhi & Ors on 18 December, 2008
“(v) That in the case of Ningamma vs. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2009) 13 SCC
710 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sadanand
10/15
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.669 of 2015
& M.P.No.1 of 2015
Mukhi reported in (2009) 2 SCC 417, this Court has
held that the owner of the vehicle or his legal
representatives or the borrower of the vehicle cannot
raise a claim for an accident in which there was no
negligence on the part of the insured vehicle. It is
submitted that in the aforesaid decisions, this Court has
held that the borrower of the vehicle steps into the shoes
of the owner and, therefore, the borrower of the vehicle
or his legal representatives are not entitled to
compensation from the insurer under the Act.
1