Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (1.30 seconds)New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Asha Rani & Ors on 17 August, 2001
We find ourselves unable, furthermore, to countenance the contention
of the respondents that the words "any person" as used in Section 147 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, would be rendered otiose by an interpretation that
removed gratuitous passengers from the ambit of the same. It was observed
by this Court in the case concerning New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Asha Rani (supra) that the true purport of the words "any person" is to be
found in the liability of the insurer for third party risk, which was sought to
be provided for by the enactment.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Devireddy Konda Reddy & ... on 24 January, 2003
It was contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
second and third respondents, the driver and owner of the vehicle
respectively, that the decision in Asha Rani case (supra) and Konda Reddy
case (supra) were delivered with respect to the position prevailing prior to
the amendment of Section 147 by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act,
1994. As such, the effect of the legislative amendment was not in question
in the above cases, and therefore, the law laid down by these decisions
would not be considered as binding law in view of coming into force of the
said amendment.
The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2000
New India Assurance Compafiy vs Shri Satpal Singh And Ors on 2 December, 1999
The Court
held that the Tribunal and the High Court were not justified in placing
reliance upon Satpal Singh case (supra), in view of its reversal by Asha
Rani (supra), and that, accordingly, the insurer would not be liable to pay
compensation to the family of the victim who was traveling in a goods
vehicle.
Goodyear India Ltd. Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana & Anr. Etc. Etc on 19 October, 1989
Heydon's Rule has been applied by this Court in a large number of
cases in order to suppress the mischief which was intended to be remedied as
against the literal rule which could have otherwise covered the field. [See for
example, Smt. PEK Kalliani Amma and Others vs. K. Devi and Others,
[AIR 1996 SC 1963; Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar and
Others, AIR 1955 SC 661; and Goodyear India Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and
Another, AIR 1990 SC 781].
Section 95 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 168 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Bengal Immunity Company Limited vs The State Of Bihar And Others on 4 December, 1954
Heydon's Rule has been applied by this Court in a large number of
cases in order to suppress the mischief which was intended to be remedied as
against the literal rule which could have otherwise covered the field. [See for
example, Smt. PEK Kalliani Amma and Others vs. K. Devi and Others,
[AIR 1996 SC 1963; Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar and
Others, AIR 1955 SC 661; and Goodyear India Ltd. vs. State of Haryana and
Another, AIR 1990 SC 781].
New India Ass. Co. Ltd vs Asha Rani & Ors on 3 December, 2002
The Court
held that the Tribunal and the High Court were not justified in placing
reliance upon Satpal Singh case (supra), in view of its reversal by Asha
Rani (supra), and that, accordingly, the insurer would not be liable to pay
compensation to the family of the victim who was traveling in a goods
vehicle.