Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)The Premier Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Vaddeswarapu Siromanamma And Ors. on 16 February, 1983
16. We will first refer to the Division Bench case in Premier Insurance Co. Ltd., Vijayawada v. Siromanamma. In this case, the facts were that some passengers were taken on free lift in a Lorry which met with an
accident. The contention was that the compulsory insurance policy does not cover the passengers taken gratis and the policy does not contemplate policy in respect of unauthorised passengers. The Court accepted the contention and held that the liability for passengers who were travelling gratuitously cannot be fastened on the insurance company on the basis of the Act policy or compulsory insurance envisaged under S. 95 of the Act. The question whether passengers who are carried for hire or reward contrary to the conditions of the permit and contrary to the policy are covered by the Act policy did not directly arise in this case. The scope of Cl. (ii) of the Proviso to S. 95(1)(b) did not fall for consideration for the simple reason that as the said Section speaks of passengers carried for hire or reward. In the case decided by the Division Bench passengers were carried gratuitously. They are neither connected with the goods nor were they carried for hire or reward. In these circumstances, it was held that Cl. (ii) of Proviso to S. 95(1)(b) has no application. Hence this decision is distinguishable.
The Oriental Fire And General Insurance ... vs Matta Chandra Rao And Anr. on 18 October, 1986
17. Next we come to Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. v. M. Chandra Rao, 1986 (2) An LT 606. In a batch of appeals which were decided by the learned single Judge, one of the questions was whether passengers carried in a goods vehicle the or injured due to the accident are liable to be compensated by the Insurance Company under S.95 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned single Judge, after a very elaborate consideration of Ss. 95 and 96 of the Act held that they are covered by the Act policy and the Insurance Company is liable and that a condition in the policy that the Insurance Company will not cover the liability of persons carried in the vehicle for hire or reward contrary to the conditions of the permit would not be valid. With great respect, we are unable to agree with this decision.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Oriental Fire And General Insurance Co. vs Hirabai Vithal Nikam And Ors. on 29 January, 1988
21. The deceased were carried in the vehicle on payment of charges and hence they were carried for hire or reward. The vehicle was not covered by a permit to carry passengers for hire or reward. The Rules prohibit carriage of persons for hire or reward in a Lorry. The Vehicles were therefore, used for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which it was used. Consequently the insurer is not liable for the tortious act of the owner of the vehicle by virtue of S. 96(2)(b)(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Oriental F. and G. Insurance Co. v. Hirabai, and the decision of the learned single Judge in M /s. Nia Co. Ltd. v. S. Jaffar, .
C. Narayanan vs Madras State Palm Gur Sammelan And Anr. on 8 November, 1973
In C. Narayana v. M.S.P.G. Sammelan, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court consisting of Kaila-sam and Maharajan, JJ., held that if a person is not employed and is travelling without any authorisation, he is not protected by the Act policy. It is further held that a passenger carried by a lorry will not be covered by the insurance policy unless he is proved to be a passenger travelling by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Abdul Munaf Majur Hussain Momin And ... on 17 August, 1984
In reaching this conclusion, the Bombay High Court relied upon its earlier decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Munaf Majur Hussain Momin, (1984) 2 TAC 265 and distinguished the earlier decision of the Bombay High Court in Nasibdar Suba Fakir v. M/s. Adhia and Co., . The Bombay High Court held that where a goods vehicle is used for carriage of passengers for hire or reward, it is used for a purpose not
allowed by the permit and consequently by virtue of S. 96(2)(b)(i)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Insurance Company is not liable for the tortious act of the owner of the vehicle.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Surjit Kaur And Anr. on 27 January, 1984
In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Surjit Kaur, 1985 ACJ 726, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that in view of the provisions of S. 95(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act the insurer is not liable for the death of a passenger travelling in a goods vehicle either on hire or gratuitously.
S.M.O. Uthaman Chettiar vs R.M. Nachappa Chettiar And Ors. on 5 September, 1979
In S.M.S. Bedi v. M. M. Thappa, it was held that it is not mandatory upon the insurer to indemnify persons who are being carried in vehicles other than those which carry for hire or reward, and if it is open to the insurance company to cover the risk of such persons by virtue of an agreement. But in the absence of any clause in the policy covering the risk of persons travelling in the goods vehicle, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the risk of such persons.
1