Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.22 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 173 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Prabha Jain And Ors. on 6 May, 1997
In support of his contention, the learned counsel for
the appellants relied on the decision of the Hobourable
Supreme Court in the case of (New India Assurance
Company Limited Vs. Prabha Devi and others) reported in
2013(1) TN MAC 781 (SC) wherein it was held that liability
of the insurer is only for the purpose of indemnifying
insured against liabilities incurred towards third party
and Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not require
the insurer to assume the risk for death/bodily injury to
the owner of the vehicle.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Krishnan, Thayammal, M. Velusamy, ... on 2 December, 2002
In the decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Krishnan reported in 2013(1) TNMAC 729 relied on by the learned counsel for
the respondent/claimant, a single bench of this court after considering the
decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court held in para 36 of its judgment that
http://www.judis.nic.in
7
"If the contention of the Appellant-Insurance Company has to
be accepted, then no compensation can be awarded under
other heads, viz., Disability, Loss of Earning, Pain and
Suffering or under any other pecuniary and non- pecuniary
losses. Even the respondent/claimant will not be in a position
to get back Rs.1,15,934/-, incurred by him, towards medical
expenses. Such a narrow construction of limiting the
compensation only to Rs.1,00,000/- cannot be made, when
sufficient oral and documentary evidence, has been adduced
to prove that the pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses
suffered by the injured, exceeds the maximum limit.
Restricting the compensation to only Rs.1,00,000/- would
defeat the very intention of the legislature, to award, "just
compensation " to the accident victim, and it will not be in
conformity with the judgments of the Apex Court, stated
supra,
On the facts and circumstances of the case, this
court is of the view that the overall quantum of compensation
awarded to the respondent/ claimant cannot be said to be
grossly excessive. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal
is dismissed. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the award amount with accrued interest and costs, to
http://www.judis.nic.in
8
the credit of MCOP No.459 of 2008, on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Sankari, within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. On such deposit being made, the respondent/ claimant
is permitted to withdraw the same, by making necessary
applications before the Tribunal".
High Court Of Gujarat & Anr vs Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat & Ors on 10 March, 2003
[See High Court of Gujarat & Anr. v.
Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat & Ors., JT 2003 (3)
SC 50; Indian Handicrafts Emporium and others v. Union
of India and others, 2003 (7) SCC 589; Ameer Trading
Corporation Ltd. v. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd., JT
2003 (9) SC 109: 2003 (9) SCALE 713; and Ashok Leyland
v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., 2004 (1) SCALE 224.
The object underlying the statute is required to be given
effect to by applying the Principles of Purposive
Construction”
Indian Handicrafts Emporium & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 August, 2003
[See High Court of Gujarat & Anr. v.
Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat & Ors., JT 2003 (3)
SC 50; Indian Handicrafts Emporium and others v. Union
of India and others, 2003 (7) SCC 589; Ameer Trading
Corporation Ltd. v. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd., JT
2003 (9) SC 109: 2003 (9) SCALE 713; and Ashok Leyland
v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., 2004 (1) SCALE 224.
The object underlying the statute is required to be given
effect to by applying the Principles of Purposive
Construction”
Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd vs Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd on 18 November, 2003
[See High Court of Gujarat & Anr. v.
Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat & Ors., JT 2003 (3)
SC 50; Indian Handicrafts Emporium and others v. Union
of India and others, 2003 (7) SCC 589; Ameer Trading
Corporation Ltd. v. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd., JT
2003 (9) SC 109: 2003 (9) SCALE 713; and Ashok Leyland
v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., 2004 (1) SCALE 224.
The object underlying the statute is required to be given
effect to by applying the Principles of Purposive
Construction”
Ashok Leland Ltd vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 7 January, 2004
[See High Court of Gujarat & Anr. v.
Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat & Ors., JT 2003 (3)
SC 50; Indian Handicrafts Emporium and others v. Union
of India and others, 2003 (7) SCC 589; Ameer Trading
Corporation Ltd. v. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd., JT
2003 (9) SC 109: 2003 (9) SCALE 713; and Ashok Leyland
v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., 2004 (1) SCALE 224.
The object underlying the statute is required to be given
effect to by applying the Principles of Purposive
Construction”
Minu B. Mehta And Another vs Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan And ... on 28 January, 1977
In the case on hand, relying on the decisions in
Thilagavathy v. Sundaram 1074 ACJ 491; Minu B. Mehta
v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan, 1977 ACJ 118; New
India Assurance v. Susamma Varghese, 1990 ACJ 521;
kaliathal v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2004 (4) CTC
716 : 2004 (2) TN MAC 144 (SC), the Appellant-Insurance
Company has disputed the liability to pay compensation,
stating that Personal Accident Cover Policy covers only
http://www.judis.nic.in
30
third party risk and not to the injured himself, and that
the owner cannot take advantage of his own negligence.
The stand of the insurance Company is contrary to the
very purpose, for which Personal Accident Cover Policy is
taken. Admittedly, RW1, an official examined on behalf
of the company, in his cross-examination, has admitted
that the owner-cum-driver, has insured himself under a
Personal Accident Cover Policy, for a sum of R.1,00,000/-
, the maximum limit under the Policy.