Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.36 seconds)
D.S.Baba vs . Sanjay Kumar Sahu & Ors. on 14 December, 2018 cites

D.S. Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. 35 ... on 10 July, 2018

(i). Driver, owner of the offending vehicle and insurer are also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount to the petitioner/claimant and    MACT No. 701/2017                                                                                                         Page No. 17    of  18                                                                              D.S.Baba vs. Sanjay Kumar Sahu & ors.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - P S Koshy - Full Document

Antitrust - Section 26(2) Disclaimer: ... vs Chief Executive Officer, Noida & Ors. ... on 29 April, 2014

(Emphasis supplied) Similar point came up before this Court in the case of Dr. A.C, Mehra v. Shri Behari Lal and Am. F.A.O. No. 138/80 decided on 1st November, 1996. This Court took the view that no deduction on account of having received any amount from the Insurance Company under a third party account can be allowed. There is no reason or justification in setting off what the appellant being entitled to receive under his contract with his Insurance Company i.e., a third party. He had bargained for the payment of a sum of money in the event of accident happening and his car being damaged. Appellant insured his car with the Insurance Company And bargained for the payment of a sum of money on the clear stipulation that in the event of accident happening to his car he would be reimbursed. He did not receive the amount of Rs. 36,000/- from his Insurance Company because of this accident but because of the contract entered into by him with his Insurance Company. The pre- condition was the happening of an accident. The said Insurance Company on the happening of the accident was to reimburse him for the damage of his car. Therefore, it cannot be said that by claiming damages under the Act because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the DTC bus and due to the damage of his car he would be debarred from claiming compensation under the Act, nor claiming such a compensation under the Act would amount to unjust enrichment. I find no merits in the appeal of the appellant on this count also. In the circumstances explained above, the appeal of the appellant fails. The same is accordingly dismissed.
Competition Commission of India Cites 7 - Cited by 849 - Full Document
1