Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.45 seconds)National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi And Others on 22 June, 2022
34. Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) has held that future
prospects have to be considered for calculating the loss of
income. After adding future prospects, the income of the
deceased comes to Rs.29,422/- (21,016/- + 21,016/- x 40/100).
The deceased was married. Therefore, one-third is to be deducted
towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 192A in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Smt. Kaushnuma Begum And Ors vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors on 3 January, 2001
21. Furthermore, it is a settled legal position that while
deciding a petition u/s 166 of the M V Act, the Claims Tribunal
has to decide negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of
probabilities. Reference in this regard is made to the observations
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kaushnumma Begum
and Others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001
ACJ 421 SC, wherein it was held that the issue of wrongful act or
omission on the part of the driver of motor vehicle involved in
the accident is of secondary importance and mere use or
involvement of motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or death
to a human being or damage to property would make the petition
maintainable u/s 166 & 140 of the M V Act.
The New India Assurane Co. Ltd. vs Smt Arti Devi & Ors on 26 February, 2015
In this regard observations made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs.
MACT No. 213/2023 11/26
Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
City Water Supplier vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 12 February, 2014
In regard to the objection raised by the
insurance company regarding the violation of the permit, as the
offending vehicle was being plied in Delhi despite possessing a
permit in respect of contract carriage only for Haryana, reference
can be made to the observations made by Hon'ble High Court in
City Water Supplier vs. The New India Assurance Company
Limited MAC Appeal 708/2012 as well as ICICI Lombard
General Insurance Company Limited vs. Bijender Singh, 2012
(130) DRJ 545 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has also relied
upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in National
MACT No. 213/2023 13/26
Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
Icici Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd vs Bijender Singh & Ors on 21 May, 2012
In regard to the objection raised by the
insurance company regarding the violation of the permit, as the
offending vehicle was being plied in Delhi despite possessing a
permit in respect of contract carriage only for Haryana, reference
can be made to the observations made by Hon'ble High Court in
City Water Supplier vs. The New India Assurance Company
Limited MAC Appeal 708/2012 as well as ICICI Lombard
General Insurance Company Limited vs. Bijender Singh, 2012
(130) DRJ 545 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has also relied
upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in National
MACT No. 213/2023 13/26
Arti Pathania & Ors. vs. Jagmohan & Ors.
Oriental Insurance Co. vs Sardar Swarn Singh (Owner Of Vehicle) on 4 September, 2014
27. In the present case also, the permit which has been
produced on record shows that it was valid for contract carriage
on the date of accident though, its region covered is Haryana
only. The driving of the vehicle in Delhi area seems to be route
violation by the driver of the vehicle for which he has been
challaned. Same however, can not be considered as a
fundamental violation as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Swarn Singh's case which could have contributed to the cause of
accident. In view of the same, the respondent no. 3/ insurance
company is liable to pay the compensation.