National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Laxmi Narain Dhut on 2 March, 2007
This position was expounded recently by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut 2007 (4) SCALE 36.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)Hiraben Bhaga And Ors. vs Gujarat State Road Transport ... on 29 June, 1981
The Full Bench referred to the decision of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Hiraben Bhaga & Ors. v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [1982 ACJ (Supp.) 414 (Guj.)] in which it has been laid down that it is entirely the choice of the claimant whether to implead both the joint tort feasors or either of them.
Smt. Sushila Bhadoriya And Ors. vs M.P. State Road Transport Corporation ... on 29 October, 2004
12. A Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Sushila Bhadoriya & Ors. v. M.P. State Road Transport Corpn. & Anr. [2005 (1) MPLJ 372] has also laid down that in case of composite negligence, the liability is joint and several and it is open to implead the driver, owner and the insurer one of the vehicles to recover the whole amount from one of the joint tort feasors. As to apportionment also, it has been observed that both the vehicles will be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Davinder Singh on 12 October, 2007
36. The inevitable conclusion therefore is that the decision in Swaran Singh case 1 has no application to own damage cases.
New India Assurance Co., Shimla vs Kamla And Ors on 27 March, 2001
It was observed in Kamla case as follows: (SCC p. 347, para 12) 12 . As a point of law we have no manner of doubt that a fake licence cannot get its forgery outfit stripped off merely on account of some officer renewing the same with or without knowing it to be forged. Section 15 of the Act only empowers any licensing authority to renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry. No licensing authority has the power to renew a fake licence and, therefore, a renewal if at all made cannot transform a fake licence as genuine. Any counterfeit document showing that it contains a purported order of a statutory authority would ever remain counterfeit albeit the fact that other persons including some statutory authorities would have acted on the document unwittingly on the assumption that it is genuine.
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Meena Variyal & Ors on 2 April, 2007
13. Laxmi Narain Dhut (supra) has since been followed by this Court in The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal and Ors. [2007 (5) SCALE 269] wherein this Court referring to Swarn Singh (supra) held:
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Brij Mohan & Ors on 15 May, 2007
4. The concept of purposive interpretation has no application to cases relatable to Section 149 of the Act. [See also Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brij Mohan and Ors., 2007 (7) SCALE 753]."
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Swaran Singh & Ors on 5 January, 2004
Further, we may observe that the claimant, being third party, should not suffer, and therefore, in view of the judgment of Swaran Singh (Supra), the Insurance Company shall deposit the awarded amount, and thereafter it can recover from the owner.
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
We may observe that though the father of the deceased G.P. Agarwal has stated that the deceased was spending some money on his brothers and sisters, but the Apex Court in paragraph 15 of the judgement of Sarla Verma (Supra) has held that where bachelor had widowed mother and number of brothers and sisters, in that situation 1/3rd should be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus, the testimony of father of deceased has no significance, particularly in view of the fact that he was not an independent witness.
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017
The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi decided on 31 October, 2017 (Constitution Bench) SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 25590 OF 2014 has held that 40% should be awarded towards future prospect where the deceased was self employed, and was below the age of 40 years, and further multiplier corresponding to age of deceased should be applied. In the instant case, the deceased was self employed and below 40 years ; and had the Tribunal awarded 40% towards future prospect, and applied multiplier of 18, the amount of compensation would almost be same as has been awarded by the Tribunal.