Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.25 seconds)
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ullash Chandra Jena And Anr. on 7 January, 1992 cites

New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Ram Dayal And Ors on 20 April, 1990

8. From the copy of the cover note produced, it is seen that the same was granted at 9 P.M. by the Development Officer of the insurer on the basis of the proposal (Ext. A). There is no reason to disbelieve the time when the covernote was issued, Short question is, whether, proposal after the accident and issue of covernote on the basis would make the insurer liable in respect of accident which was earlier to the proposal. This might have caused some difficulty in case in the decision reported in 1990 ACJ 345 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal, Supreme Court would not have held otherwise, In the said decision it was observed :--
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 121 - M Rangnath - Full Document

Smt. Asma Begum And Others vs Nisar Ahmed And Others on 8 November, 1989

According to Mr. Sinha premium having been received at 9 P.M. risk cannot be covered for a period before that. This submission of Mr. Sinha has no force. Sub-section (2) is the direct answer to Mr. Sinha's submission, Premium in this case can be ascertained from the Tarrif rate in advance, Risk, therefore, can be assumed on the day premium is paid. 'Day' commences from midnight as has been held by Supreme Court. Therefore, the time of receipt of premium is not material. The date of such receipt gains importance, Decision of Karnatak High Court reported in 1990 ACJ 832 : (AIR 1990 Kant 353), Asma Bagum v. Nisar Ahmed is of no avail to Mr. Sinha. On the facts of this case by issue of cover note risk for accident on any part of the day earlier to payment of premium is covered. When such cases arise cover note should clearly indicate that it could cover risk from the next day. In that case question might be different. I find in this case what the proposal has not been complete in all respects. It is also stated that proposal has not been signed by the owner but by his brother. Anxity to receive such proposals bring many suspicions. These are matters for the insurance company to take note for administrative purpose and for recovering of the amount paid from the owner in respect of which I express no opinion.
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 16 - Full Document
1