Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.31 seconds)
M. Anandavalli Amma, Dr. A.R. Reshmy And ... vs Arvind Eye Hospital, Rep. By Its ... on 20 June, 2002 cites

Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd vs Kokilaben Chandravadan & Ors on 1 April, 1987

If the Insurance Company is able to prove that it is because of the presence of the additional persons who were allowed to occupy the vehicle, the accident occurred, the position would be different. consequently, we hold that even in cases where more passengers are taken with or without the knowledge or implied consent or even consent of the owner, unless the Insurance Company is able to prove that the accident took place only because of such act (taking more passengers) the Insurance Company will be liable to make good the loss/compensation. It has to be noted that in the case on hand, it is not the contention of the Insurance Company that the accident had occurred because two persons, over and above the prescribed limit in the policy, were travelling at the relevant time in the vehicle. At this juncture, we may refer to a passage from the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kokibaben Chandravadan , wherein the Court observed as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 623 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

K.R. Sivagami vs Mahaboob Nisa Bi And Ors. on 16 July, 1980

15. The above ruling came to be referred to and relied on by a Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in 1981 ACJ 399 (K.R.Sivagami v. Mahaboob Nisa Bi and others). In that case, the taxi was authorised to carry only five passengers, but the driver unauthorisedly carried two more passengers and that as the taxi which was authorised to carry only five passengers carried seven passengers, the accident can be taken to be due to the negligence of the driver. In that case the Court ruled that the driver of the vehicle has carried more than the permitted load of passengers and this is contrary to the conditions of the permit under which the vehicle was allowed to be used as a tourist taxi. The Court held that the non-observance of the rules relating to the number of passengers to be carried, can only be said to be an improper performance of the driver's duties and even assuming that the permit condition not to take more than the permitted number of passengers is taken as a prohibition or restriction, that relates only to the manner of performance of the driver's duties in the course of his employment and that cannot in any way limit the sphere of his employment.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

B.V. Nagaraju vs M/S. Oriental Insurance Co. ... on 20 May, 1996

16. Yet another citation which will be of much use is (B.V.Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.). That was a case where according to the terms of Insurance policy, insured vehicle was authorised to take six workmen excluding the driver. But, at the time of accident, it carried nine persons. The Insurance Company raised a similar contention viz., that it is not liable to indemnify. Rejecting the said contention, the Supreme Court observed as under, "It is plain from the terms of the Insurance Policy that the insured vehicle was entitled to carry 6 workmen, excluding the driver. If those 6 workmen when travelling in the vehicle, are assumed not to have increased any risk from the point of view of the Insurance Company on occurring of an accident, how could those added persons be said to have contributed to the causing of it is the poser, keeping apart the load it was carrying. Here, it is nobody's case that the driver of the insured vehicle was responsible for the accident. ....... Merely by lifting a person or two, or even three, by the driver or the cleaner of the vehicle, without the knowledge of the owner, cannot be said to be such a fundamental breach that the owner should, in all events, be denied indemnification. The misuse of the vehicle was somewhat irregular though, but not so fundamental in nature so as to put an end to the contract, unless some factors existed which, by themselves, had gone to contribute to the causing of the accident. ...."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 297 - M M Punchhi - Full Document

Shivraj Vasant Bhagwat vs Smt. Shevanta Dattaram Indulkar And ... on 25 September, 1996

17. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the decision (Shivraj Vasant Bhagwat v. Shevanta Dattaram Indulkar) had occasion to consider a case in which the clause in the Insurance policy was that carrying of passengers in the vehicle except employees not exceeding six in number, where ten employees were taken in the motor truck, whereas the policy also contemplated that maximum of only six persons can be carried. There the Insurance Company claimed that inasmuch as there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy, it is not liable in any way to pay compensation. There the Court ruled thus, "... The terms of the policy of Insurance has to be construed strictly and to be read down to advance the main purpose of the contract. The main purpose of the policy is to indemnify the damage caused to the vehicle and the inmates, who are injured. It is plain from the terms of the insurance policy that insured vehicle was entitled to carry six workmen excluding driver. If six persons travelling in the vehicle are assumed not to have increased any risk from the point of view of the Insurance Company on occurring of an accident, how could these added persons be said to have contributed to the causing of it. Admittedly, all the 11 persons in the truck were working as labourers on the quarry of the appellant, who is also owner of the truck. Merely because 4/5 labourers more than the agreed six labourers were taken in the truck, it cannot be said to be such fundamental breach that the owner should in all events be denied the indemnification"
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 18 - R P Desai - Full Document
1