Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (1.46 seconds)Section 147 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Ningamma & Anr vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd on 13 May, 2009
In our considered opinion, the ratio of the decision in
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. case is clearly applicable to the
facts of the present case. In the present case, the deceased
was not the owner of the motorbike in question. He
borrowed the said motorbike from its real owner. The
deceased cannot be held to be an employee of the owner of
the motorbike although he was authorised to drive the said
vehicle by its owner and, therefore, he would step into the
shoes of the owner of the motorbike. We have already
extracted Section 163A of the MVA hereinbefore. A bare
perusal of the said provision would make it explicitly clear
that persons like the deceased in the present case would
step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle.
Ramkhiladi vs The United India Insurance Company on 7 January, 2020
He also submitted that in light of the said observation, the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Ramkhiladi (supra.) upheld that an
insurance policy covered the liability incurred by the insured in
respect of death or bodily injury to any person carried in the
vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or
arising out of the use of the vehicle. The relevant paras of the
judgment is reproduced as under:
Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Saju P.Paul & Anr on 3 January, 2013
11. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that in
the absence of premium being charged for the person other than
driver or any person who is not covered under the policy, the
insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. He
further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Saju P. Paul and Anr. reported in AIR 2013 SC 1064. The
relevant paras is reproduced as under:
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Meena Variyal & Ors on 2 April, 2007
17. This Court further finds that the submission of learned
counsel for the respondents that the deceased is not covered
under any of the three categories mentioned under Proviso to
Section 147(1) limits the liability of the Insurance Policy as upheld
in the case of Meena Variyal (supra.) is devoid of merit, since
judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents
pertain to the matters wherein "Act Policy" was existing, however
the present case concerns a "Package Policy" wherein the Hon'ble
(Downloaded on 26/07/2024 at 09:44:24 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:28624] (20 of 22) [CMA-1414/2017]
Apex Court had held a clear stance that the insurance company is
liable to pay compensation to the occupant in a car and a pillion
rider on a two-wheeler.
National Ins.Co.Ltd vs Balakrishnan & Anr on 20 November, 2012
19. Therefore, upon perusal of the Insurance Policy (Exb.3) and
in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Balakrishnan (supra.
Section 173 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Yashpal Luthra & Anr. vs United India Insur. Co.Ltd. & Anr. on 9 December, 2009
1. Subject to the limits of liabilities as laid down in the
Schedule hereto the company will indemnify the insured in
the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use
of the insured vehicle against all sums which the insured
shall become legally liable to pay in respect of-