Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)Section 147 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
M.K. Kunhimohammed vs P.A. Ahmedkutty & Ors on 1 September, 1987
In order to buttress his arguments, he cited the case of M. K. Kunhimohammed v. P. A. Ahmedkutty 1987 Acc CJ 872 : (AIR 1987 SC 2158), wherein the liability of the insurer of the bus was found limited to Rs. 5000/-. This finding was given on the provisions of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act as unamended. It is urged that the liability of the insurer appellant has also arisen under the unamended Section 95 and its limited extent was only up to Rupees Five Thousand.
Motor Owners Insurance Co. Ltd vs Jadavji Keshavji Modi & Ors on 29 September, 1981
6. Mr. D. K. Khajuria, the learned counsel for the respondents has controverted the arguments by stating that in view of the finding of the Apex Court (given by larger Bench) in the case of Motor Owners Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi, AIR 1981 SC 2059; the expression "any one accident" found in Section 95 of the Act signifies as many accidents as number of persons injured in accident. The limit of compensation of Rupees 20,000/- in that case was extended to each claimant. Elaborating his argument, Mr. Khajuria has contended that in the present case, the death of Attar Singh passenger was one accident so far his claim extended and the limit of the insurer to pay the compensation was stretched to the extent of Ks. 50,000/-. In this case also, there were as many accidents as were the number of injured. He has further contended that the insurer had not raised any such plea in the Tribunal that its liability was limited to the statutory liability. In this view of the matter, such a plea after a gap of 18 years is not available in appeal. Also, no issue regarding limited liability of Insurance Company (Appellant) herein was got framed and no argument was advanced before the Tribunal and now in appeal, the appellant is estopped from raising the plea.
Gurmukh Singh Nagi vs Sheo Karan And Ors. on 13 September, 1995
The welfare of the dependents of the victim of the accident is the basic postulate for the immunity of such an afterthought plea. Respondents 1 to 4 herein cannot be deprived of the benefits of the beneign provisions of the Act which have been amended or incorporated by way of curitive amendments effected in the Act and they are deemed to have retrospective effect. The factual plea on the basis of the terms of the policy is also not available to the appellant because respondents will be deprived of the right of rebuttal. Similar view was taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Gurmukh Singh Nagi v. Sheo Karan, 1996 Acc CJ 706, where the plea of Insurance Company regarding its limited liability as per statute did not find favour as no issue was framed. The insured would have proved his case in case of issue being framed as additional premium was paid by him.
1