Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (1.07 seconds)Section 95 in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
A. Subramani vs Mani And Ors. on 13 January, 1989
9. Mr. Prag Chawla and Mr. Saurabh Shokeer, the learned counsel
for the respondent No.1-owner, too, relied upon the aforesaid
decisions as well as the decisions rendered in A. Subramani vs. Mani
and Ors., 1990 ACJ 37; Giriraj Prasad Agrawal vs. Parwati Devi &
Ors., III (2005) ACC 559 Jharkhand (Full Bench); National
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. V.K. Sundaravali and Ors., 1990 ACJ 821;
Thoznilalar Transport Company vs. Valliammal and Ors., 1990
ACJ 201, to contend that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that
the deceased was a passenger at the time of the accident, and in
consequently holding that the liability of the Insurance Company was
limited to the extent of ` 15,000/- only.
Giriraj Prasad Agrawal And Ors. vs Parwati Devi And Ors. And Kali Paharin ... on 29 April, 2005
9. Mr. Prag Chawla and Mr. Saurabh Shokeer, the learned counsel
for the respondent No.1-owner, too, relied upon the aforesaid
decisions as well as the decisions rendered in A. Subramani vs. Mani
and Ors., 1990 ACJ 37; Giriraj Prasad Agrawal vs. Parwati Devi &
Ors., III (2005) ACC 559 Jharkhand (Full Bench); National
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. V.K. Sundaravali and Ors., 1990 ACJ 821;
Thoznilalar Transport Company vs. Valliammal and Ors., 1990
ACJ 201, to contend that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that
the deceased was a passenger at the time of the accident, and in
consequently holding that the liability of the Insurance Company was
limited to the extent of ` 15,000/- only.
Thoznilalar Transport Company vs Valliammal And Ors. on 13 January, 1989
9. Mr. Prag Chawla and Mr. Saurabh Shokeer, the learned counsel
for the respondent No.1-owner, too, relied upon the aforesaid
decisions as well as the decisions rendered in A. Subramani vs. Mani
and Ors., 1990 ACJ 37; Giriraj Prasad Agrawal vs. Parwati Devi &
Ors., III (2005) ACC 559 Jharkhand (Full Bench); National
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. V.K. Sundaravali and Ors., 1990 ACJ 821;
Thoznilalar Transport Company vs. Valliammal and Ors., 1990
ACJ 201, to contend that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that
the deceased was a passenger at the time of the accident, and in
consequently holding that the liability of the Insurance Company was
limited to the extent of ` 15,000/- only.
Tmt. Noorjahan vs Tmt. Sultan Rajia Alias Thaju & Others on 5 November, 1996
16. It may be noted that the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement
of the Supreme Court in Noorjahan's case (supra) was subsequently
followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishan Lal
Baweja and Anr. vs. Sudershan and Ors., 2002 ACJ 2037, which is
heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company
FAO 125/1996 Page 11 of 20
to buttress his contention that persons entering into or alighting from
a passenger vehicle are passengers.
New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pessumal Dhanamal Aswani And Ors on 24 April, 1964
Accordingly, it must be held that in the present case, the liability of
the Insurance Company to satisfy the award is limited to ` 15,000/-
only. Significantly, however, the insurance policy Ex.RW2/4 also
contains an „Avoidance Clause‟, in view of which it is held that the
Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award passed in favour of
the claimants/appellants in the first instance and then recover the
amount paid in excess of its limited liability from the owner and the
driver of the offending vehicle. (See New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd.
vs. Pessumal Dhanamal Aswani and Others, 1958-65 ACJ 559;
FAO 125/1996 Page 15 of 20
Amrit Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar, 1998 ACJ 531; Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Cheruvakkara Nafeessu and Others, 2001
ACJ 1; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vimal Devi and Ors.,
2010 ACJ 2878 (SC); followed by this Court in the cases of
Gurcharan Kaur and Anr. vs. Raja Ram and Anr, 2011 (6) AD
(Delhi) 36; Lata Goel and Ors. vs. Rishipal and Ors., FAO
No.254/1993 decided on September 23, 2011; and Bimla Gupta and
Ors. vs. Mahinder Singh and Ors., FAO No.51/1991 decided on
September 26, 2011).
General Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C vs Susamma Thomas on 6 January, 1993
4. On the aspect of quantum of compensation payable to the legal
representatives of the deceased, the learned Tribunal assessed the
monthly income of the deceased to be in the sum of ` 1,200/- per
FAO 125/1996 Page 3 of 20
month. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal, relying upon the judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of General Manger, Kerala State
Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Mrs. Susamma
Thomas and Ors., 1994 ACJ 1 took into account the future prospects
of increase in the income of the deceased and arrived at the average
monthly income of the deceased in the sum of ` 2,400/-. From this
amount, it deducted one-third (1/3rd) towards the personal expenses of
the deceased, thereby assessing the loss of dependency of the
claimants to be in the sum of ` 1,600/- per month. Applying the
multiplier of 10, it computed the total loss of dependency to be in the
sum of ` 1,92,000/- per annum (i.e. ` 1,600/- X 12 X 10). Adding a
sum of ` 10,000/- towards the loss of consortium, the Tribunal held
the claimants to be entitled to a total sum of ` 2,02,000/- with interest
at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the petition.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Cheruvakkara Nafeessu & Ors on 14 December, 2000
Accordingly, it must be held that in the present case, the liability of
the Insurance Company to satisfy the award is limited to ` 15,000/-
only. Significantly, however, the insurance policy Ex.RW2/4 also
contains an „Avoidance Clause‟, in view of which it is held that the
Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award passed in favour of
the claimants/appellants in the first instance and then recover the
amount paid in excess of its limited liability from the owner and the
driver of the offending vehicle. (See New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd.
vs. Pessumal Dhanamal Aswani and Others, 1958-65 ACJ 559;
FAO 125/1996 Page 15 of 20
Amrit Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar, 1998 ACJ 531; Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Cheruvakkara Nafeessu and Others, 2001
ACJ 1; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vimal Devi and Ors.,
2010 ACJ 2878 (SC); followed by this Court in the cases of
Gurcharan Kaur and Anr. vs. Raja Ram and Anr, 2011 (6) AD
(Delhi) 36; Lata Goel and Ors. vs. Rishipal and Ors., FAO
No.254/1993 decided on September 23, 2011; and Bimla Gupta and
Ors. vs. Mahinder Singh and Ors., FAO No.51/1991 decided on
September 26, 2011).
New India Assurance Company Limited vs Vimal Vahan Jain on 12 March, 2009
Accordingly, it must be held that in the present case, the liability of
the Insurance Company to satisfy the award is limited to ` 15,000/-
only. Significantly, however, the insurance policy Ex.RW2/4 also
contains an „Avoidance Clause‟, in view of which it is held that the
Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award passed in favour of
the claimants/appellants in the first instance and then recover the
amount paid in excess of its limited liability from the owner and the
driver of the offending vehicle. (See New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd.
vs. Pessumal Dhanamal Aswani and Others, 1958-65 ACJ 559;
FAO 125/1996 Page 15 of 20
Amrit Lal Sood v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar, 1998 ACJ 531; Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Cheruvakkara Nafeessu and Others, 2001
ACJ 1; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vimal Devi and Ors.,
2010 ACJ 2878 (SC); followed by this Court in the cases of
Gurcharan Kaur and Anr. vs. Raja Ram and Anr, 2011 (6) AD
(Delhi) 36; Lata Goel and Ors. vs. Rishipal and Ors., FAO
No.254/1993 decided on September 23, 2011; and Bimla Gupta and
Ors. vs. Mahinder Singh and Ors., FAO No.51/1991 decided on
September 26, 2011).