Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.34 seconds)
Siba Prasad Ghosh vs Mrs. Anima Neog & Ors on 21 June, 2017 cites

National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Parvathneni & Anr on 31 August, 2009

However, in light of the language used by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Parvathneni (supra), while referring the matter to be placed before a larger Bench, it is apparent that such orders for pay and recover are being passed in some cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. This Court is of the view that such powers is reserved to the Hon'ble Supreme Court to order the insurer to make payment and then to recover and such orders ought not to be passed by this court in exercise of appellate powers under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Hence, the prayer made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/ claimant to maintain the direction to the appellant to deposit the compensation as awarded by the learned trial court and then to recover the same from the owner is refused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 206 - Full Document

United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Rakesh Kumar Arora & Ors on 24 September, 2008

7) Accordingly, the learned Tribunal by relying on the case of United India Co. Insurance Ltd. vs. Rakesh Kumar Arora, AIR 2009 SC 24, held that there was a breach of the condition of policy as per Section 149(1)(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and decided the issue No.2 in the negative against the Respondents No.1 and 2 and in favour of the insurer. The learned Tribunal held that the appellant was the owner of the vehicle the compensation was computed at Rs.3,69,500/- and the appellant as well as the respondent No. 2 were jointly and severally directed to pay the compensation within two months, failing which it was ordered that the award would carry interest @ 6% per annum.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 85 - Full Document

Pushpa @ Leela & Ors vs Shakuntala & Ors on 12 January, 2011

18) Thus, supported by the case of Pushpa alias Leela (supra), quoted above, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be attractive. However, this Court is unable to accept the same because of two reasons; firstly, the evidence on record and finding by the learned Tribunal is that the respondent No.2, who was driving the offending vehicle was not holding a valid licence; and secondly, if the driver was driving without any valid driving licence, there was a definite breach of the conditions of insurance.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 129 - A Alam - Full Document
1   2 Next