Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.27 seconds)
Dornala Venkaiah vs M.Durga Prasad Reddy Anr on 10 September, 2024 cites

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017

In view of Pranay Sethi (supra); Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others8 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Ors,9 under the head of loss of consortium of the applicants are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each, and towards funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- and for loss of estate Rs.15,000/- with enhancement @ 10% on every three years, thus as on today @ 20% in total, which amount comes to Rs.48,000/- X 4 = Rs.1,92,000/- + Rs.18,000/- + Rs.18,000/- = Rs.2,28,000/-.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 9815 - D Misra - Full Document

Ram Chandra Singh vs Rajaram on 14 August, 2018

"14. More recently, in Ram Chandra Singh v. Rajaram5, the issue before this Court was whether an insurance company could be absolved of liability on the ground that the insured vehicle was being driven by a person who did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. This Court found that no attempt was made to ascertain whether the owner was aware of the fake driving licence possessed by the driver and held that it is only if the owner was aware of the fact that the licence was fake but still permitted such driver to drive the vehicle that the insurer would stand absolved. It was unequivocally held that the mere fact that the driving licence was fake, per se, would not absolve the insurer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 67 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Prabhu Lal on 30 November, 2007

In S. Iyyapan [S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2013) 7 SCC 62 : (2013) 3 SCC (Civ) 359 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 11] , this Court has considered the decisions in Ashok Gangadhar [Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 620 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1170] , Annappa Irappa Nesaria [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria, (2008) 3 SCC 464 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 945 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 99] as well as Prabhu Lal [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal, (2008) 1 SCC 696 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 385 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 308] and has laid down thus: (S. Iyyapan case [S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2013) 7 SCC 62 : (2013) 3 SCC (Civ) 359 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 11] , SCC p. 77, para 18) "18. In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed the grave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding the licence to drive the commercial vehicle. The impugned judgment [Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1016 of 2002, order dated 31-10-2008 (Mad)] is, therefore, liable to be set aside."
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 177 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Union Territory Of Ladakh vs Jammu And Kashmir National Conference on 6 September, 2023

25. On the point of Binding precedent of the judgment referred to a larger bench, during the pendency of the reference, in Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference6 the Hon‟ble Apex Court held inter alia that mere reference to the Larger Bench does not unsettle the declared law. Paras-32 and 35 are reproduced as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 67 - Cited by 3 - V Nath - Full Document
1   2 3 Next