Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.20 seconds)Mahinder Singh vs Manju And Ors. on 8 January, 1986
(10) Learned counsel for the appellant, however, has referred to a judgment of the Single Judge of this Court Mahinder Singh v. Manju Sawhney & Ors., 1986 A.C.J. 446 where the learned Judge, while dealing with the peculiar facts of the said case, had come to the conclusion that the copy of the Insurance Policy produced in that case was not properly proved. In this judgment also, the judgment of the Supreme Court was noticed which had laid down the law that strict rules of The Evidence Act are not applicable to such proceedings before the Tribunal, yet the learned Judge, keeping in view the peculiar facts of the said case, gave a finding that the copy of the Insurance Policy in that case was not genuine. The facts of each case have to be examined in order to decide whether a particular copy of Insurance Policy has been properly proved or not or whether there exist any suspicious circumstances in a particular case which show that perhaps the copy produced is not a genuine one.
Geeta Devi And Ors. vs Amrik Singh And Ors. on 11 November, 1989
(16) So, mere fact that higher premium had been paid than requisite for Act only policy would not lead to any inference that unrestricted liability had been taken by the insurance company by issuing the policy. It is a matter of contract between the insured and the insurance company as to whether the restricted liability policy is being issued or the policy is being issued of unrestricted liability. The judgment of the Supreme Court was followed by a Single Bench of this Court in the case of Geeta Devi (supra).
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Pushpa Kakkar And Ors. on 10 December, 1991
(14) The learned Counsel for the claimants has vehemently argued that the bare perusal of the policy shows that it was a public risk conversed policy and a premium of Rs. 125.00 had been paid and the same is not a policy issued for the purposes of "Act Only". He has contended that as soon as any policy which is not "Act Only" policy is issued and premium which is more than requisite for getting the "Act Only" policy is paid, the liability of the Insurance Company must be deemed to be unlimited. He has referred to the case of New India Assurance Company v. Pushpa Kakkar, 1992 Rajdhani Law Reporter 340 where it was held that a premium, as required against the third party risk policy, has been paid which was in excess of the premium fixed for "Act Only" policy and there was nothing on record to show either by oral or documentary evidence that in spite of payment of additional premium as against the premium fixed for Act only policy, the liability of the insurance company could not have been unlimited liability for third party risk but only what is claimed to be the strict liability. The very perusal of the judgment shows that perhaps, in that case the policy did not indicate that is was having any restricted liability of the insurance company.
1