National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Bommithi Subbhayamma And Ors. on 21 February, 2005
In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma , Hon'ble Apex Court again affirmed the same legal position:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (1.76 seconds)National Insurance Co. Ltd vs V. Chinnamma & Ors on 25 August, 2004
In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma , Supreme Court has considered the various other decisions on the subject and also considered the effect of amendment of 1994 in the Motor Vehicles Act and in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and also the decision in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani , according to the aforesaid decision a trailer attached to the tractor is required to be used for agricultural purposes, unless registered otherwise and an owner of a passenger carrying vehicle must pay premium for covering the risks of the passengers travelling in the vehicle. The premium in view of 1994 amendment would only cover a third party as also the owner of the goods or his authorised representative and not any passenger carried in a goods vehicle whether for hire or reward or otherwise.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Asha Rani & Ors on 17 August, 2001
In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma , Supreme Court has considered the various other decisions on the subject and also considered the effect of amendment of 1994 in the Motor Vehicles Act and in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and also the decision in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani , according to the aforesaid decision a trailer attached to the tractor is required to be used for agricultural purposes, unless registered otherwise and an owner of a passenger carrying vehicle must pay premium for covering the risks of the passengers travelling in the vehicle. The premium in view of 1994 amendment would only cover a third party as also the owner of the goods or his authorised representative and not any passenger carried in a goods vehicle whether for hire or reward or otherwise.
Section 147 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 173 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Jugal Kishore And Anr. vs Ramlesh Devi And Ors. on 26 September, 2003
In this case Full Bench decision of this court in the case of Jugal Kishore v. Ramlesh Devi , was considered about the third party risk.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Baljit Kaur And Ors on 6 January, 2004
In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma , Supreme Court has considered the various other decisions on the subject and also considered the effect of amendment of 1994 in the Motor Vehicles Act and in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and also the decision in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani , according to the aforesaid decision a trailer attached to the tractor is required to be used for agricultural purposes, unless registered otherwise and an owner of a passenger carrying vehicle must pay premium for covering the risks of the passengers travelling in the vehicle. The premium in view of 1994 amendment would only cover a third party as also the owner of the goods or his authorised representative and not any passenger carried in a goods vehicle whether for hire or reward or otherwise.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sarvanlal And Ors. on 31 March, 2004
3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. The sole contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the tractor and trolley were being used for agricultural purposes and the sand was being transported for agricultural purpose, therefore, the Tribunal has wrongly exonerated the insurance company and placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sarvanlal , in which the deceased was travelling in a tractor. Trolley was loaded with dowry goods and the deceased was travelling as member of marriage party in the tractor which has no sitting capacity and it was held that the deceased was travelling as a loader and insurance company is liable.
Jayraj And Anr. vs Kaluram And Anr. on 17 November, 2004
In reply Mr. S. Gajendragadkar, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, supported the award and cited various Division Bench decisions of this High Court: Jayraj v. Kaluram ; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kisnabai 2005 (2) TAC 144; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma .
1