Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.36 seconds)
Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd vs Tmt.Sulochana on 30 September, 2008 cites

Ramashray Singh vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors on 22 July, 2003

In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant would draw attention to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in RAMASHRAY SINGH v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., (2003 (3) CTC page 380) wherein Their Lordships have held that while insurance policy covers only driver of motor vehicle and no other person employed in motor vehicle is covered under policy, the persons carried in pursuance of the contract of employment was construed as passenger under old Act, the present Act does not contain such provision, that insurance policy covers persons or class of persons specified in the policy, in such cases the insurance company cannot be held liable. After extracting Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 120 - R Pal - Full Document

New India Assurance Compafiy vs Shri Satpal Singh And Ors on 2 December, 1999

Applying the principle laid down in the decision of the Supreme Court, as the first opposite party has not entered into any agreement with the insurance company as to the liability available to any person or category of persons apart from the driver, it could not be concluded that the Insurance Company is responsible. The appellant could not project a plea before this Court that the trailer was not under the insurance since it was not pleaded before the Commissioner. Further, it is in evidence that the deceased was sitting on the tractor at the time of accident even though the tractor is under proper insurance at the time of accident because of the absence of any contract specifically covering any workman, load man or coolie of the first opposite party, the Insurance Company could not be mulcted with liability.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 451 - Full Document

Subramania Naicker And Anr. vs Kuppuswamy And Anr. on 3 January, 1989

4. The appellant would contend that inasmuch as the trailor was not at all insured with the appellant and the deceased having gone in the trailer as a loadman, fell down from the trailor itself thereby met his death would not in any way make the insurance company responsible for compensation. In the Memorandum of Appeal it is stated that the trailor annexed to the tractor was not at all insured. Worthwhile it is to note that this fact was not pleaded before the Commissioner. It is settled that if any thing which was not pleaded before the Commissioner could not be raised by the insured for the first time in the appeal. It is decided in (SUBRAMANIA NAICKER V. KUPPUSWAMY) AIR 1989 Madras 297 = 1990 ACJ page 261 Madras. However, in order to show that the deceased was travelling by the tractor, the Insurance Company has not moved its little finger to examine anybody before the Commissioner.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1