Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.41 seconds)
Kunjukuttanpillai vs Muhammad Hussain on 26 October, 2009 cites

P.T. Moidu vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 3 August, 2007

occurring in Sec.3 and "is not duly licensed" occurring in Sec.149 (2)(a)(ii) and it was held that it is not sufficient that the insurer proves that the driver of the offending vehicle had no "effective license" on the date of the accident but it has to be proved that he was either not duly licensed or was disqualified from holding a license or, other circumstances stated in Sec.149(2)(a)(ii) of the Act existed and further, that the mere fact of there being no M.A.C.A.Nos.1391 of 2011, 103, 942, 943, 1041, 1534, 1536, 1541, 1655, 1722 and 1797 of 2012, 567 and 1471 of 2013 22 effective license, in the sense that the driver was not authorised to drive a transport/goods vehicle on the date of the accident by itself, is not sufficient unless the insurer is also able to prove that the breach of the condition of driving license is/are so fundamental as is/are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. That is what the Division Benches of this Court have pointed out in P.T Moidu Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Balakrishnan and in M.A.C.A.No.105 of 2012. In other words, that there was no authorisation/badge to drive a transport/goods vehicle on the date of the accident may amount to an infraction of Sec.3 of the Act opening the person concerned to prosecution under the relevant provisions of the Act but, in the absence of proof that absence of authorisation/badge has contributed to the cause of accident, the insurer is not absolved of its liability to the third parties or, its duty to indemnify the insured.
Kerala High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 19 - J B Koshy - Full Document

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

32. Though learned counsel for the insurers in these appeals have taken my attention to National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai and Ors. (supra) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal (supra), those decisions cannot be relied on for the purpose of either exonerating the insurer or giving the insurer a right of recovery for the reasons that the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 20.08.2013 in M.A.C.A.No.105 of 2012 has distinguished those decisions and held that those decisions do not apply to the situation in this state where rule 6 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules applies.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 535 - S B Sinha - Full Document

National Insurance Company Ltd vs Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors on 22 January, 2008

19. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and Anr. (2008 ACJ 2161-SC) referred to the decisions in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh (supra) and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria (2008 ACJ 721-SC). In M.A.C.A.Nos.1391 of 2011, 103, 942, 943, 1041, 1534, 1536, 1541, 1655, 1722 and 1797 of 2012, 567 and 1471 of 2013 13 New India Assurance Co.Ltd.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 292 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Paulose on 21 August, 2003

14. Sec.149(2)(a) of the Act deals with avoidance of liability to the third parties, by the insurer. The circumstances in which the insurer could avoid its statutory liability to the third parties is stated. Sub clause (ii) refers to a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving license during the period of disqualification. Referring to the above said provision, a Full Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Paulose (2004(1) KLT 8) held that the expression "is not duly licensed" is used in the past tense (the decision in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Paulose (supra) was doubted M.A.C.A.Nos.1391 of 2011, 103, 942, 943, 1041, 1534, 1536, 1541, 1655, 1722 and 1797 of 2012, 567 and 1471 of 2013 8 and referred to the Full Bench which, by order dated 09.07.2009 in M.A.C.A.No.585 of 2003 has referred the matter to a larger Bench.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 28 - K A Gafoor - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Prabhu Lal on 30 November, 2007

32. Though learned counsel for the insurers in these appeals have taken my attention to National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai and Ors. (supra) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prabhu Lal (supra), those decisions cannot be relied on for the purpose of either exonerating the insurer or giving the insurer a right of recovery for the reasons that the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 20.08.2013 in M.A.C.A.No.105 of 2012 has distinguished those decisions and held that those decisions do not apply to the situation in this state where rule 6 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules applies.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 177 - C K Thakker - Full Document
1   2 3 Next