Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.34 seconds)Section 147 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Shri Gian Chand And Others on 2 September, 1997
16.Likewise, the other decision relied on by the learned counsel in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. GLAN CHAND AND OTHERS reported in 1997 ACJ 1065, (cited supra) was entirely in a different circumstances, where the vehicle was driven by a person who did not possess a valid driving licence. The said issue does not arise for consideration in the present matter.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. vs Selvam And Ors. on 30 November, 2005
In view of the latest decisions of the Supreme Court, in my considered view, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court made in United India Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Selvam and others, 2005 (2) TN MAC 345 (DB) : 2006 (1) MLJ 154 is to be clarified.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Shri Nanjappan And Ors on 13 February, 2004
The Honble Full Bench then proceeded to take in to consideration the Judgments of Honble Supreme Court reported in
1.2004 (1) CTC 210 (SC), National Insurance Co., Limited vs. Baljit Kaur
2.2004 (2) CTC 464 (SC), Oriental Insurance Co., Limited vs. Nanjappan
3.2007 (7) SCC 56, Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., vs. Brijmohan and others
4.2006 (2) CTC 347, National Insurance Co., Ltd., vs. Kusum Rai & others
5.2008 (3) MLJ 568 (SC), Premkumari and others vs. Prahlad Dev & others
and held that even though the statutory provisions under Section 149 (4) and 149 (5) was not applicable the Honble Supreme Court applied in doctrine of pay and recover and the ratio of the decision has been applied selectively in some of the later decisions and has not been applied by the Honble Supreme Court depending on the facts of a particular case. After analysis of the statutory provisions which were explained by the Honble Supreme Court in the various decisions, the Honble Full Bench held as follows.
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kusum Rai & Ors on 24 March, 2006
The Honble Full Bench then proceeded to take in to consideration the Judgments of Honble Supreme Court reported in
1.2004 (1) CTC 210 (SC), National Insurance Co., Limited vs. Baljit Kaur
2.2004 (2) CTC 464 (SC), Oriental Insurance Co., Limited vs. Nanjappan
3.2007 (7) SCC 56, Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., vs. Brijmohan and others
4.2006 (2) CTC 347, National Insurance Co., Ltd., vs. Kusum Rai & others
5.2008 (3) MLJ 568 (SC), Premkumari and others vs. Prahlad Dev & others
and held that even though the statutory provisions under Section 149 (4) and 149 (5) was not applicable the Honble Supreme Court applied in doctrine of pay and recover and the ratio of the decision has been applied selectively in some of the later decisions and has not been applied by the Honble Supreme Court depending on the facts of a particular case. After analysis of the statutory provisions which were explained by the Honble Supreme Court in the various decisions, the Honble Full Bench held as follows.
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S. National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Baljit Kaur And Ors on 6 January, 2004
The Honble Full Bench then proceeded to take in to consideration the Judgments of Honble Supreme Court reported in
1.2004 (1) CTC 210 (SC), National Insurance Co., Limited vs. Baljit Kaur
2.2004 (2) CTC 464 (SC), Oriental Insurance Co., Limited vs. Nanjappan
3.2007 (7) SCC 56, Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., vs. Brijmohan and others
4.2006 (2) CTC 347, National Insurance Co., Ltd., vs. Kusum Rai & others
5.2008 (3) MLJ 568 (SC), Premkumari and others vs. Prahlad Dev & others
and held that even though the statutory provisions under Section 149 (4) and 149 (5) was not applicable the Honble Supreme Court applied in doctrine of pay and recover and the ratio of the decision has been applied selectively in some of the later decisions and has not been applied by the Honble Supreme Court depending on the facts of a particular case. After analysis of the statutory provisions which were explained by the Honble Supreme Court in the various decisions, the Honble Full Bench held as follows.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Rula & Ors on 7 March, 2000
17.The Honble Supreme Court in a decision in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., Vs RULA AND OTHERS reported in 2000 ACJ 630, held that in a contract of Insurance under Chapter 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act a third party who is not a signatory to the contract of Insurance, is nevertheless protected by such a contract. It is further held that the third party is not concerned and does not come into the picture at all in the matter of payment of premium. Whether the premium has been paid or not is not a concern of the third party who is not concerned with the fact that there was a Policy issued in respect of vehicle involved in the accident and it is on the basis of this Policy that the claim can be maintained by the third party against the Insured. It was further held in the said decision, if on the date of the accident, there was a Policy of Insurance in respect of the vehicle in question, the third party can claim against the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle would have to be indemnified in respect of the claim of that party and any subsequent cancellation of the Insurance Policy on the ground of non payment of premium would not affect the rights already accrued in favour of the third party. So it would appear that it was in not payment of premium or non-payment thereof, but whether the policy was alive or cancelled.