Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.56 seconds)National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Santro Devi & Ors. Etc on 18 November, 1997
Incidentally, we may refer to a decision rendered
by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Santro Devi and ors. {1998(1) SCC 219} which
pointed out that the observations made by the Full Bench in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Santro Devi were obiter
dicta because the facts in that case did not warrant any
such observation.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sucha Singh And Ors. on 29 September, 1993
The observation of the Division Bench of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Sucha Singh (supra) that renewal of a document which
purports to be a driving licence, will robe even a forged
document with validity on account of Section 15 of the Act,
propounds a very dangerous proposition. If that proposition
is allowed to stand as a legal principle, it may, no doubt,
thrill counterfeiters the world over as they would be
encouraged to manufacture fake documents in a legion. What
was originally a forgery would remain null and void for ever
and it would not acquire legal validity at any time by
whatever process of sanctification subsequently done on it.
Forgery is antithesis to legality and law cannot afford to
validate a forgery.
Section 149 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 164 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kokilaben Chandravadan & Ors on 1 April, 1987
It is advantageous to refer to a two-Judge Bench of this
Court in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kokilaben
Chandravadan and ors. {1987 (2) SCC 654}. Though the said
decision related to the corresponding provisions of the
predecessor Act (Motor Vehicles Act, 1939) the observations
made in the judgment are quite germane now as the
corresponding provisions are materially the same as in the
Act. Learned Judges pointed out that the insistence of the
legislature that a motor vehicle can be used in a public
place only if that vehicle is covered by a policy of
insurance is not for the purpose of promoting the business
of the Insurance Company but to protect the members of the
community who become sufferers on account of accidents
arising from use of motor vehicles. It is pointed out in
the decision that such protection would have remained only a
paper protection if the compensation awarded by the courts
were not recoverable by the victims (or dependents of the
victims) of the accident. This is the raison detre for the
legislature making it prohibitory for motor vehicles being
used in public places without covering third party risks by
a policy of insurance.
Sohan Lal Passi vs P. Sesh Reddy & Ors on 17 July, 1996
The principle laid down in the said decision has been
followed by a three-Judge Bench of this Court with approval
in Sohan Lal Passi vs. P. Sesh Reddy and ors. {1996 (5)
SCC 21}.