Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Shivaji vs Divisional Manager United India ... on 9 August, 2018
11. The said principals of law was again subject
matter of another decision in Shivaji's case cited supra.
13
Relevant portion of the said judgment is culled out
hereunder:
The Branch Manager United India ... vs Sunil Ramanna Pol Anr on 19 January, 2017
"5. The issue which arises before us is
no longer res integra and is covered by a
recent judgment of three judges of this Court
in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil
Kumar & Anr. AIR 2017 SC 5710, wherein it
was held that to permit a defence of
negligence of the claimant by the insurer
and/or to understand Section 163A of the
Act as contemplating such a situation, would
be inconsistent with the legislative object
behind introduction of this provision, which is
"final compensation within a limited time
frame on the basis of the structured formula
to overcome situations where the claims of
compensation on the basis of fault liability
was taking an unduly long time". The Court
observed that if an insurer was permitted to
raise a defence of negligence under Section
163A of the Act, it would "bring a proceeding
under Section 163A of the Act at par with the
proceeding under Section 166 of the Act
which would not only be self-contradictory
14
but also defeat the very legislative intention".
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Sadanand Mukhi & Ors on 18 December, 2008
10. In the case on hand, accidental death of
Mr.Prabhu involving motor-cycle bearing No.KA-01-EC-
3393 and parked lorry bearing No.KA-42-469 is not in
dispute. Initially, the claim petition came to be filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Subsequently,
same was amended and the petition was sought to be
adjudicated under the provisions of Section 163-A of the
Motor Vehicles Act. The main contention urged by the
learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the
11
Tribunal ought not to have allowed the claim petition
against the Insurance Company as the rider of the motor-
cycle would step into the shoes of the owner of the motor-
cycle as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
NINGAMMA and SADANANDA MUKHI's case supra.
Section 15 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
United India Ins.Co.Ltd vs Sunil Kumar & Anr on 29 October, 2013
The
relevant portion of Sunil Kumar's case is culled out
hereunder:
1