Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
R.Muthuraj vs Rangasamy on 27 January, 2016 cites

The New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd vs S.Krishnasamy on 10 December, 2014

In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in New India Insurance Co.Ltd., vs. S.Krishnasamy reported in 2015 (1) TN MAC 19 (DB), wherein it has been held that the occupants of a private car cannot be termed as Third Party and when policy covered only Third Party risk and risk of occupants of Car was not covered, insurer cannot be held to be liable to pay the compensation.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 45 - G Chockalingam - Full Document

Bhagyalakshmi And Ors vs United Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr on 6 May, 2009

21. In view of the aforesaid factual position there is no scintilla of doubt that a comprehensive/package policy would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car. There is no cavil that an Act Policy stands on a different footing than a Comprehensive/Package Policy. As the circulars have made the position very clear and the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has commanded the insurance companies stating that a Comprehensive/Package Policy covers the liability, there cannot be any dispute in that regard. We may hasten to clarify that the earlier pronouncements were rendered in respect of the Act Policy which admittedly cannot cover a third party risk of an occupant in a car. But, if the policy is a Comprehensive/Package Policy, the liability would be covered. These aspects were not noticed in the case of Bhagyalakshmi (supra) and, therefore, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. We are disposed to think that there is no necessity to refer the present matter to a larger Bench as the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has clarified the position by issuing circulars which have been reproduced in the judgment by the Delhi High Court and we have also reproduced the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 59 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Amrit Lal Sood & Anr vs Smt. Kaushalya Devi Thapar & Ors on 17 March, 1998

12. It is apt to note here that this Court in Bhagyalakshmi and others v. United Insurance Company Limited and another [(2009) 7 SCC 148], after dealing with various facets and considering the authorities in Amrit Lal Sood and Another v. Kaushalya Devi Thapar and Others[1998 ACJ 531 (SC)], Asha Rani [2003 ACJ 1 (SC), Tilak Singh [2006 ACJ 1441 (SC)], Jhuma Saha [2007 ACJ 818 (SC)], Sudhakaran K. V. [2008 ACJ 2045 (SC), has observed thus :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 210 - Full Document

Yashpal Luthra & Anr. vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr on 17 December, 2009

Thereafter, the Bench took note of a decision rendered by Delhi High Court in Yashpal Luthra and Anr. V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another[2011 ACJ 1414 (Delhi)] wherein the High Court had referred to the circulars issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee (TAC) and Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA). This Court referred to the portion of circulars dated 16.11.2009 and 3.12.2009 which had been reproduced by the High Court and eventually held as follows: -
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 120 - J R Midha - Full Document

Karuthapandi vs R. Sivakumar And Anr. on 26 October, 2006

He would further submit that the Tribunal has to re-fix the liability of compensation on the Insurance Company, as per the judgment rendered in Karuthapandi Vs. R.Sivakumar and another reported in 2006 (5) CTC 526. On these basis, he pleaded for modification of the award, giving a direction to the Insurance Company/sixth respondent herein to Pay the entire award amount and thereafter, recover the same from respondents 4 and 5.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - J A Sampathkumar - Full Document
1