Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.37 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 95 in Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 [Entire Act]
National Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs Jugal Kishore & Others on 9 February, 1988
30. I am afraid, reliance on the Supreme Court decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd.'s case [1988] 63 Comp Case 847 is misplaced.
Gopal, Krishnaji Ketkar vs Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors on 19 April, 1968
28. These facts are supposed to be in the special knowledge of the insurance company. If the insurance company fails to establish by producing relevant documents and cogent evidence then the benefit of statutory liability will not be available to it. The Tribunal ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the insurance company in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Krishnaji Kethar v. Mohamed Haji Latif , where it was observed that (at page 1416) :
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Darshan Singh And Ors. on 12 August, 1991
36. In view of these repeated observations of the Supreme Court, it was incumbent on the insurance company to have properly proved the insurance policy and filed it with the written statement which was filed way back in March, 1980. Having not done so, the only irresistible conclusion which can be drawn is that had the insurance policy been produced, it would have proved that there was a special contract covering the third part risk to an unlimited extent. The Division Bench of this court in the case of New India Assurance Co. v. Darshan Singh [1992] Rajdhani Law Reporter 246, observed that a printed copy of the policy brought on record by a witness of the insurance company cannot inspire confidence; hence in the absence of the original policy the liability of the insurance company remains unlimited. Similarly in the present case also, not even the office copy has been produced. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the facts, which have come on record, I have no hesitation to conclude that the liability of the insurance company is unlimited. Looking from another angle also I can say that the arguments of counsel for the respondent insurance company are wholly untenable, that it was for the owner to prove that extra premium was paid to cover unlimited liability. Borrowing the words of Desai J. in the case of Narcinva.
Narcinva V. Kamat And Anr. Etc vs Alfred Antonio Doe Martins And Ors on 25 April, 1985
V. Kamat v. Alfredo Alfredo Antonio Doe Martino [1985] 58 Comp Case 383; [1985] ACJ 397 it can be said that a monopoly successfully avoided its legally incurred liability on wholly untenable grounds. That is the scenario in these appeals. The insurance company having the monopoly of general insurance cannot avoid its liability particularly when it has failed to substantiate its plea raised in the written statement. The Supreme Court, in the above noted case, while negating the contention of the insurance company observed that (at page 388) :