Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
United India Ins.Co.Ltd vs Sunil Kumar & Anr on 29 October, 2013
5.7 Now, so far as the reliance placed upon by the
learned Advocate for the claimants on the decision of this
Court in the case of Naveen Kumar (supra), on considering
the issue involved in that decision, we are of the opinion
that the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of
the case on hand and/or the same shall not be of any
assistance to the claimants. In that case, the issue was as to
who could be said to be the registered owner of the vehicle
and the liability of the owner who sold the vehicle, but his
name continued to be as the owner with the registering
authority. To that, it was held that the person in whose
name the motor vehicle stands registered is the owner of
the vehicle for the purpose of the Act.
Ningamma & Anr vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd on 13 May, 2009
In view
of the judgment reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 169 (SC) [Ningamma &
another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.] referred to above, the
respondents 1 to 4 are entitled to compensation under personal accident
coverage. In the personal accident coverage for two wheeler, the upper limit
is only Rs.1,00,000/- at that time. In view of the said contract, the
appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay only Rs.1,00,000/- as
compensation to the respondents 1 to 4.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rajni Devi & Ors on 22 April, 2008
In Rajni Devi (supra), it has been specifically
observed and held that the provisions of Section 163A of
the Act cannot be said to have any application with regard
to an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle
himself is involved.
Section 147 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 173 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Laxmi Narain Dhut on 2 March, 2007
After considering the decisions of this
Court in the cases of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Jhuma
Saha (2007) 9 SCC 263; Dhanraj (supra); National
Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Laxmi Narain Dhut (2007) 3 SCC
700 and Premkumari v. Prahlad Dev (2008) 3 SCC 193, it
is ultimately concluded by this Court that the liability
under Section 163A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle
as a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient
and, therefore, the heirs of the owner could not have
maintained the claim in terms of Section 163A of the Act.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ashalata Bhowmik on 31 August, 2018
It
is further observed that, for the said purpose, only the
terms of the contract of insurance could be taken recourse
to. In the recent decision of this Court in the case of
26/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2626 of 2014
Ashalata Bhowmik (supra), it is specifically held by this
Court that the parties shall be governed by the terms and
conditions of the contract of insurance. Therefore, as per
the contract of insurance, the insurance company shall be
liable to pay the compensation to a third party and not to
the owner, except to the extent of Rs.1 lakh as observed
hereinabove.”
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Jhuma Saha And Ors on 16 January, 2007
After considering the decisions of this
Court in the cases of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Jhuma
Saha (2007) 9 SCC 263; Dhanraj (supra); National
Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Laxmi Narain Dhut (2007) 3 SCC
700 and Premkumari v. Prahlad Dev (2008) 3 SCC 193, it
is ultimately concluded by this Court that the liability
under Section 163A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle
as a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient
and, therefore, the heirs of the owner could not have
maintained the claim in terms of Section 163A of the Act.