Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.29 seconds)Narinder Singh vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. on 12 April, 2013
In Narinder
Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others case (supra), the
vehicle was temporarily registered for a period of one month, which expired on
11.01.2006. On 02.02.2006, the vehicle met with an accident and got damaged.
The licence, possessed by the driver, had been endorsed for HGV w.e.f
20.04.2002, and for LMP Transport also w.e.f. 07.06.2003. Both the
endorsements were valid for thee years. Though the Driver was having a valid
and effective licence, yet at the time of accident on 02.02.2006, the vehicle
was being driven without registration, which was prohibited under Section 39 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Honble National Commission, upheld the order
of State Commission, vide which the order of District Forum below, allowing the
complaint, was set aside. The Revision Petition filed by the complainant Sh.
Narinder Singh, was dismissed.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Iffco Tokio General Ins. Co. Ltd. vs Pratima Jha on 27 April, 2012
Company Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Pratima Jha, II(2012) CPJ 512 (NC), it was
held that the contention that there was violation of law, which prohibited the use
of unregistered vehicle, was not acceptable. The Insurance Company was not
entitled to repudiate the claim merely on ground that the vehicle had not been
registered.
Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 16 February, 2012
In case
Kaushalendra Kumar Mishra Vs.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (supra), the Honble National
Commission, after quoting the provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, held the view that till the vehicle receives the certification of
registration, from the competent authority, it was not legally useable on roads
and the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim.
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Section 12 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr. vs Pearls Buildwell Infrastructure Ltd. & ... on 27 February, 2012
18. Reliance placed by the District Forum on
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pearls Buildwell Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors., (2012) CPJ 102 (NC), pertained
to repudiation of claim when the vehicle did not have permanent registration at
the time of theft and it was held that the insurance company was not entitled
to repudiate the claim on the ground that the vehicle was not registered. Further, in case Iffco Tokio General Ins.
1