Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.30 seconds)
Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. vs Kalawati And Ors on 14 November, 2017 cites

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

11. Admittedly, in the instant case, from perusal of the insurance policy, it is evident that in insurance policy, the sitting capacity was shown as two and the vehicle was insured only in respect of third party liability. The Insurance Company in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Cholleti Bharatamma & Ors. 2008 (1) SCC 423, National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baljit Kaur and Ors,.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 713 - V N Khare - Full Document

Darshan Singh Brar vs The Oriental Insurance Company ... on 14 February, 2013

9. Similar view has been taken by Division bench of this Court in the cases of Darshan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 (2) JKJ 36 and S. T. Motors and Ors. V. Shabir Ahmed Lone and Anr., 2017 (3) JKJ 20[HC]. It is well settled in law that gratuitous passenger travelling in goods carriage causing his death cannot claim compensation from the insurance company in case such a vehicle meets with an accident.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Vedwati & Ors on 20 February, 2007

Similar view has been taken in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Vedwati and others, 2007 ACJ 1043; Biju P Thomas v. Chakkappan and Anr., 2008 (4) Supreme 202, National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kaushalaya Devi and Ors, 2008 (4) Supreme 441 and Division Bench decisions of this Court in Darshan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 (2) JKJ 36 and S. T. Motors and Ors. V. Shabir Ahmed Lone and Anr., 2017 (3) JKJ 20[HC].
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 132 - A Pasayat - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kaushalaya Devi & Ors on 13 May, 2008

Similar view has been taken in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Vedwati and others, 2007 ACJ 1043; Biju P Thomas v. Chakkappan and Anr., 2008 (4) Supreme 202, National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kaushalaya Devi and Ors, 2008 (4) Supreme 441 and Division Bench decisions of this Court in Darshan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 (2) JKJ 36 and S. T. Motors and Ors. V. Shabir Ahmed Lone and Anr., 2017 (3) JKJ 20[HC].
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 112 - S B Sinha - Full Document

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

In Manuara Khatun and Ors. V. Rajesh Kr. Singh and Ors, AIR 2017 SC 1204, the Supreme Court has taken into account the previous decisions rendered by it and held that if the victim was travelling in offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger, the insurance company cannot be held liable arising out of accident on the strength of the insurance policy. However, the Supreme Court keeping in view the benevolent object of the Act and other relevant factors arising in the case, issued the directions against the CIMA No.306/2011 Page 4 of 6 Insurance Company to pay the awarded sum to the claimants and then to recover the said sum from the insured in the same proceedings by applying the principle of „pay and recover‟. Thus, it is evident that Division Bench of this Court while taking into account the law laid by larger bench of the Supreme Court i.e. the bench comprising of three judges has applied the principle of pay and recover in the peculiar facts of the case. It is well settled in law that it is not everything said by a Judge while giving judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a Judge‟s decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the ratio decidendi.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 544 - A M Sapre - Full Document

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

Ltd. V. Asha Rani and others, 2003 ACJ 1 noticed a difference between the definition of goods vehicle under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 and the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and held that Section 2(35) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not include passengers in goods carriage whereas Section 2(25) of 1939 Act did, as even passengers could be carried in a goods vehicle. The difference in the definitions of the goods vehicle in 1939 Act and „goods carriage‟ in 1988 Act is significant. By reason of the change in the definition of the terminology, the legislature intended that a goods vehicle could not carry any passenger, as the words „in addition to passengers‟ occurring in the definition of goods vehicle in 1939 Act were omitted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 935 - Full Document

Biju P.Thomas vs Chakkappan & Anr on 9 May, 2008

Similar view has been taken in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Vedwati and others, 2007 ACJ 1043; Biju P Thomas v. Chakkappan and Anr., 2008 (4) Supreme 202, National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kaushalaya Devi and Ors, 2008 (4) Supreme 441 and Division Bench decisions of this Court in Darshan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 (2) JKJ 36 and S. T. Motors and Ors. V. Shabir Ahmed Lone and Anr., 2017 (3) JKJ 20[HC].
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next