Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Shashi Singh & Others on 10 December, 2014 cites

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Swarn Kanta Sahgal And Ors. on 30 April, 1993

18. So far as Insurance Company is concerned, it is made clear that it is not responsible for payment of compensation merely on the ground that vehicle was insured by it. However, the compensation, as determined by Tribunal, shall be paid by Insurance Company to the claimants but it shall be entitled to recover the same from owners of vehicle in view of the law laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swarn Singh and Ors., (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 79 - Full Document

Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009

14. Another aspect, which has been raised in the cross objection is about multiplier. It is said that instead of 15, it should have been 16. However, I find no force in the submission, inasmuch as, for the age group between 36 to 40, multiplier 15 has been said to apply in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. (supra). Para 21 of the judgment, relevant for the purpose, is reproduced as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 20141 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

V.B. Rangaraj vs V.B. Gopalakrishnan And Others on 28 November, 1991

The learned counsel for the claimants has argued that it was the duty of the Insurance Company to prove that the driver had no valid driving license at the time of the accident. My attention has been drawn towards the observation made in Dularbai and others Brij Mohan Khandelwal and others 1987 TAC (Vol.1) 64 M.P. (High Court), wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble High Court that the burden to establish that the driver has no valid license lay on the Insurance Company. Opposite party no. 5 Ram Adhar himself has not appeared before the Tribunal to assertion oath that he did not have valid driving license at the time of the accident. Sri B.V. Kotgire v. V. Jaiwantathete, 1993 (1) T.A.C. 207 also the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has observed that if the licensed driver of the owner left vehicle in case of the cleaner and that he also left the key, these facts were sufficient to bind the Insurance Company. The aforesaid observation find support from AIR 1989 SC 2002. There is sufficient evidence on records to hold that Ram Adhar was driving the tractor in question at the time of the accident, as he was arrested on the spot by the police and the tractor itself was seized just after the accident. It is also establish on record that the tractor was insured at the time of the accident. It was for the opposite parties and particularly opposite party no. 3 to prove the fact with sufficient evidence that Ram Adhar did not have a valid driving license or the terms of the insurance policy have been breached by the owner of the vehicle or its driver. In these circumstances, it may be concluded that the opposite parties could not prove that Ram Adhar did not have valid driving license at the time of the accident and since the insurance policy was comprehensive the Insurance Company can not escape from the liability."
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 100 - Full Document
1