Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)Section 96 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 66 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
National Insurance Company vs T. Elumalai And Anr. on 3 January, 1989
5. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of
this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
T.Elumalai and another, reported in CDJ 1989 MHC 224, and the
decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Ketal Singh
Vs. Narinder Kumar and others, reported in CDJ 2015 HPHC 249, in
support of his submission. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that
the direction to recover the compensation from the appellant is liable to be
set aside.
Ketal Singh vs Narinder Kumar And Others on 16 October, 2015
5. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of
this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
T.Elumalai and another, reported in CDJ 1989 MHC 224, and the
decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Ketal Singh
Vs. Narinder Kumar and others, reported in CDJ 2015 HPHC 249, in
support of his submission. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that
the direction to recover the compensation from the appellant is liable to be
set aside.
Sandhya Rani Debbarma & Ors vs The National Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr on 16 September, 2016
In the judgment in Rani's case, which was relied upon by the
learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 10 of 15
C.M.A.(MD) No.1128 of 2018
was dealing with the case where the permit issued by the State of
Maharashtra was to operate the vehicle in the State of Maharashtra and
the vehicle had plied in the State of Karnataka. In such circumstances, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the offending vehicle did not have a
valid permit to operate in the State of Karnataka and therefore, the insurer
can pay the compensation and recover it from the owner. The relevant
portions of the judgment reads as follows:
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., ... vs Bishan Dass And Ors. on 30 April, 1987
11. The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in the judgment in Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. Palampur Vs. Bishan Dass and others,
reported in AIR 1988 HP 26, held that the breach of conditions of the
permit is not the same thing as breach of the purpose for which the permit
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 6 of 15
C.M.A.(MD) No.1128 of 2018
was issued and that the act being the beneficial legislation has to be
construed strictly, and therefore, the insurer cannot be allowed to take a
defence, which is not provided under the statute. The relevant portion of
the said judgment reads as follows:
Raghunath Eknath Hivale vs Shardabai Karbhari Kale And Ors. on 3 December, 1985
386) and those of some of the other High Courts
which are referred to in para 10 of the said decision
lend support to the above view. Even if such use
amounts to the breach of statutory rules then also the
defences allowed by Sub-section (2) are not attracted.
Bomanji Rustomji Ginwala vs Ibrahim Vali Master And Ors. on 28 March, 1981
The decision of the Gujarat High Court in Bomanji
Rustomji Ginwala v. Ibrahim Vali Master, AIR 1982
Guj 112, supports this view.