Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Usha on 6 February, 1996
In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Usha, 1996 ACJ 838, the Kerala High Court has held that merely because the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving iicence, the Insurance Company cannot disown its liability to pay the amount awarded to the claimants. The same view has been reiterated in the following decisions:-
United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Jaimy on 12 November, 1997
(i) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jaimy, 1998 ACJ 1318; (ii) Judgment in C.M.A. Nos.tOl to 124 of 1999 dated 21.1.2000 (P. Sathasivam, J.); (iii) Smt. Sham Kumar v. Kamal Singh, 2000 (1) TAC 129 (MP)-DB); (iv) Oriental Insurance Co. Lid., Regional Office, Madras v. Amudha, 2000 (1) TAC 163 (Mad.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs N. Devadas And Ors. on 16 April, 1999
); (v) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Balwant Singh, 2000 (2) TAC 116 (P & H)-DB); (vi) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shashi Bala Gupta, 2000 (2) TAC 289 (All) (DB); (vii) National Insurance Company Ltd. Kakinada v. Hapu Seethamma, 2000 (2) TAC 361 (AP); and (viii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. N. Devadas, 2000 ACJ 925 (P. Sathasivam, J.)
Smt. Kaushnuma Begum And Ors vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors on 3 January, 2001
In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Kaushnuma Begum v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. 2001 (1) Supreme 5, we, reduce, the rate of interest to 9% per annum.
Section 158 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 177 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 184 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Narcinva V. Kamat And Anr. Etc vs Alfred Antonio Doe Martins And Ors on 25 April, 1985
In Narcinvav Kamal v. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins, 1985 ACJ 397 the Supreme Court has held that the onus was on the Insurance Company to prove that the driver had no driving licence to escape liability. It has also been held that mere non produciion of the licence by the driver does not exonerate
the insurance company and it was held liable to indemnify the award.