Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.26 seconds)
The Divisional Manager vs Gurushantagouda S/O Ninganagouda on 20 November, 2018 cites

Gadhilingappa @ Gadhilinga S/O Ulluru ... vs K. Guleppa S/O K Kingappa on 2 January, 2018

11. This Court by relying upon the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in the case of Gadhilingappa @ Gadhilinga and another vs. K.Guleppa and others reported in 2018 (3) KCCR 2383 has come to the conclusion that if a death of a coolie occurs while traveling by sitting on the mudguard of the tractor, as the tractor is having only one seat for the driver and the other instruments including the seat on the mudguard are not covered. As such, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the loss.
Karnataka High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Bramaranbike And Ors. on 8 July, 2005

He further relied upon the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Bramaranbike and others reported in 2006 ACJ 671 and submitted that the liability of the Insurance Company is there only in respect of driver as it has got only one seat for driver and Regulation 28 of Rules of the Road Regulations prohibits carrying of any person on the mudguard of the tractor, then under such circumstances, the Insurance Company is not liable for the death of such person who travels on mudguard.
Karnataka High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 15 - K S Rao - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. vs Annappa Laxman Karamoshi And Ors. on 5 September, 2003

In order to substantiate the said fact, he relied upon the decision in :6: the case of New India Assurance Company Limited, Bangalore vs. Annappa Laxman Karamoshi reported in Laws (Kar) 2003 9 64. He further submitted that the doctrine of notional extension of the work is applicable to the present facts of the case on hand. If the said doctrine is extended, then the deceased was an employee of the 3rd respondent and accident occurred during the course of employment. As such, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - K L Manjunath - Full Document

The Assistant Executive Engineer, N.H. ... vs Shantavva And Ors. on 22 January, 2001

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 - owner of the vehicle vehemently argued and submitted that the principles of doctrine of notional extension of the work is applicable to the present case on hand. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 by relying upon the decision in the case of The Assistant Executive Engineer, N.H. No.13, Bijapur vs. Shantavva and others reported in 2001 (2) ACC 439 submitted that the wider :7: interpretation has to be made not only at the work place, but also a person is said to have been on duty of work while he is returning to his home or resident and at that time, if the accident occurs Insurance Company is liable.
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1