Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.31 seconds)
Malti Devi vs Vijay Kumar on 8 September, 2015 cites

Smt.Manti Devi vs Vijay Kumar Yadav on 22 May, 2009

The averments made in the claim petition were denied. It is submitted that the vehicle No.HR­55E­5911 has been falsely implicated in the case. It is contended that the amount claimed is not only an exaggerated and inflated figure but also does not disclose on what account the respondent No.1 is liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. It is alleged that it was a hit and run case and the respondent No.1 had been falsely roped in the case with Suit No. 290/14 Page no. 5 of 31 Malti Devi v Vijay Kumar & Ors.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Shashi Bhushan & Ors. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors on 31 May, 2012

8.Since the driving licence which was available on the record was valid for driving LMV only and not LMV (Transport) and no other licence was produced by the insured, it has to be held that the driver possessed valid driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) only and not a transport vehicle. Thus, in view of the judgment in Shashi Bhushan & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., MAC APP.517/2007, decided on 31.05.2012; National Insurance Co. v. Kusum Rai, (2006) 4 SCC 250; and New India Assurance Company Limited v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir & Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 253, the driver was not competent to drive the vehicle involved in the accident.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 8 - G P Mittal - Full Document

National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kusum Rai & Ors on 24 March, 2006

8.Since the driving licence which was available on the record was valid for driving LMV only and not LMV (Transport) and no other licence was produced by the insured, it has to be held that the driver possessed valid driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) only and not a transport vehicle. Thus, in view of the judgment in Shashi Bhushan & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., MAC APP.517/2007, decided on 31.05.2012; National Insurance Co. v. Kusum Rai, (2006) 4 SCC 250; and New India Assurance Company Limited v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir & Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 253, the driver was not competent to drive the vehicle involved in the accident.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 535 - S B Sinha - Full Document

New India Assurance Co.Ltd vs Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir & Anr on 12 May, 2008

8.Since the driving licence which was available on the record was valid for driving LMV only and not LMV (Transport) and no other licence was produced by the insured, it has to be held that the driver possessed valid driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) only and not a transport vehicle. Thus, in view of the judgment in Shashi Bhushan & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., MAC APP.517/2007, decided on 31.05.2012; National Insurance Co. v. Kusum Rai, (2006) 4 SCC 250; and New India Assurance Company Limited v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir & Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 253, the driver was not competent to drive the vehicle involved in the accident.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 177 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next