Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (2.55 seconds)Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 147 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
Section 171 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 128 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 185 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Brij Mohan & Ors on 15 May, 2007
14. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company also
relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brij Mohan and Ors.
reported in AIR 2007 SC 1971, wherein it has been observed
that the liability cannot fall upon the Insurance Company in case
of a passenger travelling in a goods vehicle and that the Hon'ble
Apex Court had directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the
award, only while exercising the power under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India. The relevant paras are reproduced as under:
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Asha Rani & Ors on 17 August, 2001
"10. Furthermore, respondent was not the owner of the
tractor. He was also not the driver thereof. He was merely a
passenger travelling on the trolley attached to the tractor.
His claim petition, therefore, could not have been allowed
in view of the decision of this Court in New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and Ors. MANU/SC/1105/2002 :
Nirmala Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 40 Wps/432/2017 ... on 18 May, 2018
16. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company also
relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court at Jaipur, in the case of Babu Lal v. Kailash Bai [S.B. Civil
Misc. Appeal No. 4547/2019 decided on 03.05.2023] wherein it
has been observed that the Tribunal had rightly exonerated the
Insurance Company when the deceased was traveling in the
offending vehicle as a gratitious passenger and that, the offending
vehicle was not being used for agricultural purposes, at the time
of the accident, contrary to the purpose for which the offending
vehicle had been insured by the Insurance Company and thus, in
the present case too, inasmuch as the offending vehicle was not
being used for agricultural purposes at the time of accident,
learned cousnel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted
that the learned Tribunal erred in imposing the liability upon the
appellant-Insurance Company in the present case. The relevant
para is reproduced as under: