Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.49 seconds)
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Geeta Rani And Others on 23 December, 2014 cites

New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Sadanand Mukhi & Ors on 18 December, 2008

In New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Sadanand Mukhi and others (2009) 2 SCC 417, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that Section 146 of the Act lays down the requirements for insurance against third party risk and where a third party risk is involved, an insurance policy is required to be mandatorily taken out. The provisions of the Act provide for two types of insurance, one statutory in nature and the other contractual in nature. By taking an "Act Policy" the owner of a vehicle fulfill his statutory obligation as contained in Section 147 of the Act whereas the Insurance company is bound to compensate the owner or the driver of the motor vehicle in case any person dies or suffers injury as a result of an accident. However, if the owner of the vehicle or others are proposed to be covered, an additional premium is required to be paid for covering their life and property. If the liability of the Insurer is contractual its liability extends to the risk covered by the policy of insurance. If additional risks are sought to be covered, additional premium has to be paid.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 264 - S B Sinha - Full Document

National Ins.Co.Ltd vs Balakrishnan & Anr on 20 November, 2012

The distinction between Act Only Policy and a Comprehensive / Private Car Package Policy has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Balakrishnan and another" ( 2013) 1 SCC 731 and it has been held that an "Act policy" admittedly cannot cover a third-party risk of an occupant in a car. But, if the policy is a "comprehensive / package policy", the liability would be covered.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 340 - D Misra - Full Document

New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Asha Rani & Ors on 17 August, 2001

In our view, although the observations made in Asha Rani case were in connection with carrying passengers in a goods vehicle, the same would apply with equal force to gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle also. Thus, we must uphold the contention of the appellant Insurance Company that it owed no liability towards the injuries suffered by the deceased Rajinder Singh who was a pillion rider, as the insurance policy was a statutory policy, and hence it did not cover the risk of death of or bodily in injury jury to a gratuitous passenger."
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 935 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next