Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.29 seconds)
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs Abdul Latief And Ors. on 29 November, 2024 cites

Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kokilaben Chandravadan & Ors on 1 April, 1987

In support of the contention, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan and Ors. We do not think that that decision has any relevance to the present case. There the facts found were quite different. The. vehicle concerned in that case was undisputedly entrusted to the driver who had a valid licence. In transit the driver stopped the vehicle and went to fetch some snacks from the opposite shop leaving the engine on. The ignition key was at the ignition lock and not in the cabin of the truck. The driver has asked the cleaner to take care of the truck. In fact the driver had left the truck in the care of the clean- er. The cleaner meddled with the vehicle and caused the accident. The question arose whether the insured (owner) had committed a breach of the condition incorporated in the certificate of insurance since the cleaner operated the vehicle on the fatal occasion without driving licence. This Court expressed the view that it is only when the insured himself .entrusted the vehicle to a person who does not hold a driving licence, he could be said to have committed preach of the condition of the policy. It must be established by the Insurance Company that the breach is on the part of the insured. Unless the insured is at fault and is guilty of a breach of the condition, the insurer cannot escape from the obligation to indemnify the insured. It was also observed that when the insured has done everything within his power in as much as he has engaged the licensed driver 20 and has placed the vehicle in his charge with the express or implied mandate to drive himself, it cannot be said that the insured is guilty of any breach.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 623 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

M.S. Grewal & Anr vs Deep Chand Sood & Ors on 24 August, 2001

Similarly, in M.S.Grewal and ors vs Deep Chand Sood and ors, (2001) 8 SCC 151, (14) school students had died due to drowning in a river. The Supreme Court, after noticing that the students came from an upper middle class background, awarded the compensation of Rs.5.00 lacs. There is a long series of judgments of the Supreme Court which provide that the notional income of a non-earning person, having regard to his/her background, the passage of time since the incorporation of Second Schedule to the M.V. Act in the year 1994, as well as the factors like inflation and the devaluation of the rupee, can certainly be taken into account while taking the income of a non-earning person for the purpose of assessing just compensation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 397 - Full Document

Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram on 18 September, 2018

15 It is correct that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi' case (supra), the compensation under the conventional head „loss of consortium‟ is permissible and there is no 13 separate head for „loss of love and affection‟ to parents provided in the said judgment, but the question whether the parents of a deceased child would be entitled to compensation under the head „loss of consortium‟ has been answered by the Supreme Court in the later judgment of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, vs. Nanu, (2018) 18 SCC 130. In the said case, the Supreme Court, while answering the aforesaid question, has observed as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 4992 - I Malhotra - Full Document

1. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs . Amina Begum And Others on 10 May, 2019

In Prem Lata Shukla's case (supra) and in Amina Begum's case (supra), the claimants had sought to rely upon the FIR/Challan for the purpose of proving the accident, but turned around and contended that the other contents contained in rest part of the FIR/Challan should not be read against them. It is in those circumstances that the Supreme Court and this Court held that the same is not permissible in law. So, the ratio laid down in Prem Lata Shukla‟s case (supra) and in Amina Begum‟s case (supra) cannot be made applicable to the present case as the facts are 17 clearly distinguishable. It is open to the claimants in the present case to plead and prove that the vehicle in question was being driven by the driver Mohd Rafiq and that it is on account his negligence that the accident had taken place.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - S Kumar - Full Document

Sohan Lal Passi vs P. Sesh Reddy & Ors on 17 July, 1996

25 To examine the correctness of the views expressed in Skandia Insurance Company‟s case (supra), the matter was referred to a three Judge Bench in the case of Sohan Lal Passi vs P. Sesh Reddy & Ors, (1996) 5 SCC 21. While examining the same, the Supreme Court expressed its agreement with the view taken in the case of Skandia Insurance Company‟s case (supra). The Court went on to observe as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 577 - N P Singh - Full Document

Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Anr on 18 October, 2010

Instead of relying upon his personal expertise, the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal should have taken guidance from the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar and another, (2011) 11 SCC 243, for assessing the actual loss of earning capacity of the injured/claimants. Para (12) of the said judgment is relevant to the context and the same is reproduced as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 3811 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1   2 Next