Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.73 seconds)Pepsu Road Transport Corp vs National Insurance Co on 26 August, 2013
16. The same principle was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. National Insurance
Company Ltd., (2013) 10 SCC 217, where it was observed that if a driver
produces a licence which appears genuine, and the employer is satisfied
about the competence of the driver, the owner cannot be held liable even if
the licence is later found to be fake. In such a situation, the liability to
indemnify continues to rest upon the insurer, unless it is proved that the
insured was aware of the licence being fake and still permitted the driver to
operate the vehicle.
Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr on 15 April, 2009
In
Smt.Sarla Verma's case (supra), the Apex Court
fixed multiplier of 15 for the age group of 36 to 40
years. Applying the multiplier of 15 to the annual
dependency, the total death compensation works
out to ₹17,01,000/-(₹1,13,400/- x 15).
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi Son Of Late Prashant Sethi ... on 20 April, 2011
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
petitioners are held entitled to ₹15,000/- towards
funeral expenses in view of case law National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors. (supra).
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017
Petitioner No.1 Smt.Harpreet Kaur is
awarded an amount of ₹40,000/- on account of loss
of consortium and the petitioners are further
awarded an amount of ₹15,000/- on account of loss
of estate in view of case law National Insurance
8 of 20
::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 00:33:18 :::
FAO-5086-2018 (O&M) -9-
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra).
Thus, the petitioners are awarded a total
compensation ₹17,71,000/- (₹17,01,000/- +
₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses + ₹40,000/-
towards loss of consortium to widow petitioner
No.1 + ₹15,000/- towards loss of estate) on
account of death of Narender Singh in the road side
accident.
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Laxmi Narain Dhut on 2 March, 2007
Learned counsel
for respondent No.3-insurance company while
placing reliance upon case laws National
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut 2007(2)
ACC 28(SC) , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Vasdev Kalra and Ors. 2014(3) RCR (Civil) 1009
(P&H) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Kusum & Ors. 2010(2) ACC 518 (SC), has argued
that once the original driving licence of respondent
No.1 is found to be fake, its subsequent renewal
cannot make it genuine because the renewal thereof
cannot cure the inherent defect and since
respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and
effective driving licence, the insurance company-
respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the
compensation.
United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Lehru And Ors on 28 February, 2003
14 of 20
::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 00:33:18 :::
FAO-5086-2018 (O&M) -15-
them is valid or not. Thus where the owner
has satisfied himself that the driver has a
licence and is driving competently there
would be no breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii).
The Insurance Company would not then be
absolved of liability. If it ultimately turns out
that the licence was fake, the insurance
company would continue to remain liable
unless they prove that the owner/insured was
aware or had noticed that the licence was
fake and still permitted that person to drive.
More importantly, even in such a case the
insurance company would remain liable to
the innocent third party, but it may be able to
recover from the insured. This is the law
which has been laid down in Skandia, Sohan
Lal Passi and Kamla cases. We are in full
agreement with the views expressed therein
and see no reason to take a different view."
Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
K. Ramya vs National Insurance Company Ltd. on 30 September, 2022
20. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.
Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 (4) RCR (Civil) 435, is that the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal enjoy sufficient latitude in awarding "just
compensation" and are not fettered by rigid formulae or strict evidentiary
standards as in civil suits. Interference at the appellate stage is warranted
only when the award is manifestly excessive, arbitrary, or contrary to settled
principles.