Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.44 seconds)
The National Insurance Company Limited vs (1) Tairun Bibi on 10 May, 2022 cites

Manuara Khatun & Ors vs Rajesh Kr. Singh & Ors on 21 February, 2017

19. Since undisputedly, the insurance policy of the opposite party No.1- owner of the vehicle was valid. The appellant- Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.1,86,300/- and recover the same from the owner, in view of the principle of law settled in the cases of Shivaraj Vs. Rajendra & Another (supra), Manuara Khatun Vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh (supra), National Insurance Company Limited vs. Baljit Kaur and others (supra). The second point for determination is answered accordingly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 544 - A M Sapre - Full Document

Shivaraj vs Rajendra on 5 September, 2018

19. Since undisputedly, the insurance policy of the opposite party No.1- owner of the vehicle was valid. The appellant- Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.1,86,300/- and recover the same from the owner, in view of the principle of law settled in the cases of Shivaraj Vs. Rajendra & Another (supra), Manuara Khatun Vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh (supra), National Insurance Company Limited vs. Baljit Kaur and others (supra). The second point for determination is answered accordingly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 171 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Baljit Kaur And Ors on 6 January, 2004

19. Since undisputedly, the insurance policy of the opposite party No.1- owner of the vehicle was valid. The appellant- Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.1,86,300/- and recover the same from the owner, in view of the principle of law settled in the cases of Shivaraj Vs. Rajendra & Another (supra), Manuara Khatun Vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh (supra), National Insurance Company Limited vs. Baljit Kaur and others (supra). The second point for determination is answered accordingly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 713 - V N Khare - Full Document

Rani vs National Insurance Company Ltd. on 31 July, 2018

"11. At the same time, however, in the facts of the present case the High Court ought to have directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant claimant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, in view of the consistent view taken in that regard by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rani v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and including Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh. In other words, the High Court should have partly allowed the appeal preferred by Respondent 2. The appellant may, therefore, succeed in getting relief of direction to Respondent 2 insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, Respondent 1."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 37 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Swaran Singh & Ors on 5 January, 2004

"11. At the same time, however, in the facts of the present case the High Court ought to have directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant claimant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, in view of the consistent view taken in that regard by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rani v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and including Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh. In other words, the High Court should have partly allowed the appeal preferred by Respondent 2. The appellant may, therefore, succeed in getting relief of direction to Respondent 2 insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, Respondent 1."
Supreme Court of India Cites 68 - Cited by 3847 - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Asha Rani & Ors on 17 August, 2001

18. This court has already held in answer to the first point for determination that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the truck. It transpires that no additional premium was paid for such a passenger travelling by the truck in question. The deceased could not be considered to be a third party. The insurance company is thus, not liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants; in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shivaraj Vs. Rajendra & Another (supra), Manuara Khatun Vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh (supra), National Insurance Company Limited vs. Baljit Kaur and others, reported in (2004) 2 SCC 1 as well as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani & Ors. reported in (2003) 2 SCC 223.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 935 - Full Document

Mangla Ram vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd on 6 April, 2018

"11. At the same time, however, in the facts of the present case the High Court ought to have directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant claimant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, in view of the consistent view taken in that regard by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rani v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and including Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh. In other words, the High Court should have partly allowed the appeal preferred by Respondent 2. The appellant may, therefore, succeed in getting relief of direction to Respondent 2 insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, Respondent 1."
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 736 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document
1