Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.33 seconds)Section 96 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. vs Nathiben Chatrabhuj And Ors. on 19 January, 1982
61. The provisions have been elaborately considered by a Full Bench of The Gujarat High Court. It is pointed by P D. Desai, J. (as he then was) in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nathiben Chatrubhuj (Supra) that, as permitted by Section 96(2)(b), the above conditions can certainly be imposed in a permit granted in respect of the vehicle. But it will be necessary for the Insurance Company to establish, by evidence, that a permit was granted with the above conditions. While it is sufficient for the claimant to show that the statutory insurance of Act-policy was available i.e., to the extent in Section 95(1)(b)(i) and (ii), the Insurance Company, if it wants to disclaim the liability of satisfying the decrees against the insured must prove that, on the date of the contract of Insurance the insured vehicle was not expressly or impliedly covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward ; or that other conditions of the permit were violated. Unless this burden is discharged by the Company it will be liable.
Abdul Jabbar vs Muniammal on 22 July, 1980
But even here, in spite of the owner's prohibition, the Madras High Court in Abdul Jabbar v. Muniammal held that the owner is liable and we are not concerned with such a question here.
Smt. Santra Bai And Etc. Etc. vs Prahlad And Ors., Etc. Etc. on 17 April, 1985
45. As pointed out in the Full Bench case in Santra Bai v. Prahlad (supra) in Clause (i) of the proviso it is stated that policy is not required in the three cases (a), (b), (c) above referred to. In other cases of employees of the owner of the vehicle, it must be treated as covered by Clause (ii) of the proviso, making the Insurance Company liable. In that case, while dealing with employees of the hirer of a goods vehicle it was held that
Now so far as the employees of the owner of the vehicle are concerned, if carried in goods vehicle, they would be covered under Sub-clause (c) of Clause (i) to the proviso of Sub-section (1) of Section 95. Thus, the other category of passengers carried in a vehicle in pursuance of a contract of employment under Clause (ii) of the proviso will be those, who would be employees of the owners of the goods or of such person who had hired such goods vehicle.
United India Fire And General Insurance ... vs M.S. Durairaj And Ors. on 23 February, 1981
and it was held that Mr. Moore was being carried under an implied contract for hire. However on facts, the Company was held not liable. Obviously, this was not covered by the Act-policy and when the policy excluded liability of the Company in cases of passengers carried for hire or reward, the Company was held not liable. (See Hardy Ivamy, Fire and Motor Insurance, 4th Ed. 1984 at pp. 266.267). If the statute there had provided that cases of passengers carried for hire or reward were compulsorily covered (as in our Section 95), the clause in the policy excluding liability, would have been treated as void and the Company would have been held liable. I have referred to this case as one where the Court raised a presumption that a passenger is not normally carried gratuitously. Likewise in United India F and G Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M. S. Durairaj it was held by the Madras High Court that normally a lift to a passenger cannot be treated as a free-lift. The view appears to be that the normal presumption is that a person is not carried gratuitously of course, this is rebuttable.
Premier Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Vadeswarapu Siromanamma And Ors. on 16 February, 1983
I am unable to follow these two rulings in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pushpa Bai's case (supra) and of the Division Bench of this Court in Premier Insurance Co. Ltd., case (Supra).
Nasibdar Suba Fakir vs Adhia And Company And Ors. on 25 January, 1983
The word 'reward' is explained as meaning 'some consideration', express or implied, by the Bombay and Rajas-than High Courts in Nasibdar v. Adhia Co. (Supra) and Santra Bai v. Prahlad (Supra) where other cases are also considered. A gratuitous passenger is one who is not carried for hire or reward.
Oriental Fire And General Insurance Co. ... vs B. Parvathamma And Ors. on 21 June, 1984
65. It is however argued for the Insurance Companies that in Abdul Jabbar v. Muniammal, in G. Dhyanand v. Zaaminibi, (supra) in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. B. Parvathamma, (supra), the Courts held that even though the Rules does not come to the aid of the owner of the vehicle, it may still help the Company. For the reasons mentioned above, I cannot accept this contention.