Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.39 seconds)
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Rohit S/O Shri Ajay Chouhan (Minor) ... on 25 July, 2024 cites

National Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Nicolletta Rohtagi And Ors on 17 September, 2002

8 CR-438-2023 Challa Bharathamma & Others as reported in 2004 ACJ 2094 is that the High Court erred in holding that since the offending vehicle was not having any permit, therefore, the question of violation of any condition thereof does not arise. In this backdrop, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held the view of the High Court fallacious and further held that a person without permit to ply a vehicle cannot be placed at a better pedestal vis-a-vis one who has a permit, but has violated any condition thereof. It has, in continuation, mentioned that plying of a vehicle without a permit is an infraction. Therefore, in terms of Section 149 (2), defence is available to the insurer on that aspect. When this complete decision is taken into consideration in terms of the provisions contained in Section 149 (2) (a) (i) (a), then the requirement is that the defence available to the Insurance Company is non-availability of a permit to ply for hire or reward. When this is read with Section 2 (31) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which defines permit means a permit issued by a State or Regional Transport Authority or an Authority prescribed in this behalf under this Act authorizing the use of a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle, then it is apparent that the purpose of permit is to authorize a vehicle to be used either as a transport vehicle or as a goods vehicle. Route permit has not been defined in the Motor Vehicle Act. There is no mention of words 'route permit' in Section 149 (2), therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi (supra) unless and until there is infraction of any of the conditions mentioned in Section 149 (2), defence is not available to the Insurance Company and, therefore, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 26-07-2024 11:08:31 9 CR-438-2023 the cases of Moti Ram v. ICICI Lombard & Others as reported in 2015 (1) TAC 618 (P&H), Mohinder Singh v. Lakhwinder Kaur & Others as reported in 2018 ACJ 118 so also Mani Ram Aggarwal (deceased) through his L.Rs. v. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others as reported in 2017 ACJ 1082 has laid down the law that where there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and merely the vehicle operated on a route different from the route permit, it will not constitute violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 502 - V N Khare - Full Document

Nirmala Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 40 Wps/432/2017 ... on 18 May, 2018

Therefore, this Court in the terms of the said judicial discipline being bound by the ratio of the judgment laid down in the case of Ram Sujan Tiwari (supra), has to bow down to the ratio and accept the proposition that even in case of violation of route permit, the insurer shall be exonerated from its liability to jointly and severally satisfy the claim alongwith the owner.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 4774 - M M Shrivastava - Full Document

Rapati Ramayamma (Died) Per L.Rs. vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 26 February, 1997

8 CR-438-2023 Challa Bharathamma & Others as reported in 2004 ACJ 2094 is that the High Court erred in holding that since the offending vehicle was not having any permit, therefore, the question of violation of any condition thereof does not arise. In this backdrop, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held the view of the High Court fallacious and further held that a person without permit to ply a vehicle cannot be placed at a better pedestal vis-a-vis one who has a permit, but has violated any condition thereof. It has, in continuation, mentioned that plying of a vehicle without a permit is an infraction. Therefore, in terms of Section 149 (2), defence is available to the insurer on that aspect. When this complete decision is taken into consideration in terms of the provisions contained in Section 149 (2) (a) (i) (a), then the requirement is that the defence available to the Insurance Company is non-availability of a permit to ply for hire or reward. When this is read with Section 2 (31) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which defines permit means a permit issued by a State or Regional Transport Authority or an Authority prescribed in this behalf under this Act authorizing the use of a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle, then it is apparent that the purpose of permit is to authorize a vehicle to be used either as a transport vehicle or as a goods vehicle. Route permit has not been defined in the Motor Vehicle Act. There is no mention of words 'route permit' in Section 149 (2), therefore, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi (supra) unless and until there is infraction of any of the conditions mentioned in Section 149 (2), defence is not available to the Insurance Company and, therefore, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA JOSEPH Signing time: 26-07-2024 11:08:31 9 CR-438-2023 the cases of Moti Ram v. ICICI Lombard & Others as reported in 2015 (1) TAC 618 (P&H), Mohinder Singh v. Lakhwinder Kaur & Others as reported in 2018 ACJ 118 so also Mani Ram Aggarwal (deceased) through his L.Rs. v. United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others as reported in 2017 ACJ 1082 has laid down the law that where there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and merely the vehicle operated on a route different from the route permit, it will not constitute violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - R M Bapat - Full Document
1