Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.32 seconds)
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Anjana Shyam And Ors. on 28 December, 1999 cites

Radhey Shyam Agarwal And Anr. vs Gayatri Devi W/O Mahendra Prasad Das And ... on 22 November, 1996

In other claim petitions, the appellant insurance company has not filed similar applications and thereby no opportunity was given to the respondents to controvert the claims of the appellant insurance company before the Tribunals below. Under Section 149(2)(a)(i)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the defence which the appellant insurance company can raise is in respect of the breach of specified or enumerated conditions of the insurance policy one of which being, viz., if the vehicle allowed by permit has been used for a purpose other than the specified purpose. As noticed above, the purpose of permit of the ill-fated bus was to carry the passengers and, therefore, there is no violation of the statutory provisions by the insured and as such the defence that more than 42 + 2 passengers specified under the policy of insurance were carried at the time of the accident in the ill-fated bus is not available under Section 149(2)(a)(i)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act to the appellant insurance company against third party risk as the vehicle was not used for the purpose not authorised by the permit. For taking this view, we are supported by a Division Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Radhey Shyam Agarwal v. Gayatri Devi 1998 ACJ 1177 (MP) and the judgment of the Apex Court in B. v. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1996 ACJ 1178 (SC).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Member, Motor Accident Claims ... on 22 September, 1992

In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Lakhimpur 1993 ACJ 828 (Gauhati), the Full Bench of Gauhati High Court held that the insurance company cannot raise defences in appeal which are not available under Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 unless, of course, the Tribunal has passed an order under Section 170 or the insurance company has reserved in the policy the right to contest the claim on behalf of the insured. In the cases on hand, the appellant insurance company has miserably failed to prove the exception clause IMT-12 in the policy Exh, R-4 on the file of the Tribunal below and on perusal of the policy, we find no such clause incorporated in the policy which was filed and marked in evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant insurance company has shown us a copy of the policy of the insurance in which IMT-12 clause has been incorporated but mere showing of policy of insurance containing IMT-12 clause for the first time at the time of hearing before us will not prove the contents of the documents relating to the contract entered into between the insured and insurer. As no attempt has been made by the appellant insurance company to properly prove this document on record, therefore, we cannot allow the appellant insurance company torely upon clause IMT-12 in the present cases and also upon condition No. 2 incorporated in the policy under heading of conditions. Even otherwise, we find that the overloading does not have the effect of snapping the contracted relationship or exonerating the insurance company from liabilities for payment of compensation. If at all, it only reserves a right in the insurance company to proportionately recover from the insured for rendering the insurance company for greater liability than the one contracted for. The evidence on record does not permit us to decide about the rights of the parties, if any, in this regard. For all these reasons, we are not inclined to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company to allow the applications filed under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code for impleadment of the State of H.P. as also the applications under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the written statements incorporating the defence of overloading of the ill-fated bus in these appeals, as a ground of their defence to avoid their liability in total or in part.
Gauhati High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 18 - U Bhat - Full Document

Shankarayya And Anr. vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. on 16 January, 1998

In Shankarayya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 1998 ACJ 513 (SC), their Lordships held that the insurance company when impleaded as a party by the court can be permitted to contest the proceedings on merits and on ground other than those permitted under the Act only if the conditions precedent mentioned in Section 170 are found to be satisfied and for that purpose the insurance company has to obtain an order in writing from the Tribunal and that it should be a reasoned order by the Tribunal too. Their Lordships further proceeded to hold that unless the said procedure is followed, the insurance company cannot have a wider defence on merits than what is available to it by way of statutory defence. It is again said that it is true that the claimants themselves had joined insurance company in the claim petitions but that was done with a view to thrust the statutory liability on the insurance company on account of the contract of the insurance and that was not an order of the court itself permitting the insurance company which was impleaded to avail of a larger defence on merits on being satisfied on the conditions mentioned in Section 170. Thus, it is well settled law of the Apex Court that unless the insurance company was allowed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to take all defences mentioned in Section 170 by a reasoned order, such applications under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act are not maintainable in appeal before this court. Therefore, the applications also merit dismissal on this short ground.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 172 - Full Document
1   2 Next