Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.44 seconds)National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Parvathneni & Anr on 31 August, 2009
I have no doubt in
my mind about principle which is very well laid down and I will not feel
deterred by the doubt which is expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Parvathneni's case (supra).
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Swaran Singh & Ors on 5 January, 2004
The judgment in Parvathneni's case (supra)
does not doubt the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National
FAO No.3650 of 2011(O&M) -2-
Insurance Co v Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 where the point has
been brought out through judgment that summarises the law in
paragraph 110 as follows:-
New India Assurance Co., Shimla vs Kamla And Ors on 27 March, 2001
2. If there is ever a doubt in the principle, it is only in respect of
cases where the insurance company was not liable in the first place or
there was no policy of insurance to cover the risk but still the insurance
FAO No.3650 of 2011(O&M) -3-
company was made liable for satisfying the claim for a third party. In
such a situation, doubting the pay and recover principle will be perfectly
justified. However, in such a situation where there was a valid
insurance and the person was making the claim was also entitled to be
protected in terms of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act that
provides for compulsory insurance cover, the right of liability of the
insurance company is statutorily laid down through the provisions in
Section 149(4) proviso Section 149(5) and this point has also been
brought by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India
Assurance Co., Shimla v. Kamla,(2001) 4 SCC 342.
Section 147 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
1