Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.97 seconds)
Vemavaram Sudheer Babu Anr vs Vemavaram Sadananda Anr on 7 September, 2018 cites

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sunita Rathi & Ors on 4 December, 1997

The liability of the company to pay compensation was disputed, on the ground that being the legal 16 heir, she has stepped into the shoes of the insured and that therefore, placing reliance on a decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Sunita Rathi reported in 1998 ACJ 121, it was contended that, as per the policy, she cannot claim compensation, as the legal heir of the deceased. Per contra, the respondent therein, has contended that inasmuch as the policy considered in the abovesaid reported case, was a comprehensive policy, the Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 231 - Full Document

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance ... vs A.Pappathi . on 9 January, 2015

14. A decision of the High Court of Madras reported in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., v. A.Pappathi and others4 was relied upon by the respondent's counsel, wherein the Insurance Company disputed its liability on the ground that the victims are gratuitous passengers and there is no statutory liability to cover the risk of occupants. The High Court considered the circular dated 17.03.1978 issued by the Tariff Advisory Committee, directing the Insurance Companies to incorporate the words, 'including occupants carried in the motor car provided that such occupants are not carried for hire or reward'. It was held that India Motor Tariff, 2002 supersedes earlier provisions of tariff and under India Motor Tariff, 2002 Package Policy casts liability on the insurance company to compensate the death or bodily injury to any person, including occupants carried in the vehicle, provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward and hence insurance company would be liable.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 Next