Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.39 seconds)Section 166 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Ningamma & Anr vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd on 13 May, 2009
For
the purpose of clarity, I quote para 13, 18, 19 and 20 of the
decision in the case of Ningamma and another v. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd., (quoted supra) which reads as
under;
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Sadanand Mukhi & Ors on 18 December, 2008
In order to substantiate his said
8
contention, he relied upon the decision in the case of New
India Assurance Company Limited v. Sadanand Mukhi
and others reported in 2009 ACJ 998. On these grounds,
he prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the
impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
Section 165 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
United India Ins.Co.Ltd vs Sunil Kumar & Anr on 29 October, 2013
17. Further in the case of United India Insurance
Company v. Sunil Kumar and another reported in AIR
2017 SC 5710, therein the Hon'ble Apex Court has
observed that the compensation awarded under structured
formula basis is in the nature of a final award and
adjudication thereunder is required to be made without any
22
requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver/owner of
vehicle of vehicle/s involved in the accident. By observing as
stated above, the question has been answered by holding
that in a proceeding under Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, it is not open for the insurer to raise any
defence of negligence on the part of the victim himself. When
the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the insurer will not be
having any option and he cannot raise any defence with
regard to negligence on the part of the victim himself, then
under such circumstances, the contention raised by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer that the
deceased himself has contributed to the alleged accident and
he is a tortfeasor and he stepped into the shoes of the owner
and he is not liable to pay any compensation does not have
any force in law and the same is rejected. Though the above
said decisions quoted by the learned counsel for the insurer
are also on the same effect, but in the subsequent decisions,
this proposition of law has been referred to the Larger
Bench. In the light of the question raised, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has come to the conclusion that the insurer is not
23
having any defence in this behalf and as such the insurer is
made liable to pay the compensation.
The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Sharada G on 14 November, 2008
In order to substantiate the said fact, he has
relied upon the decision in the case of Ningamma and
another v. United India Insurance Company Ltd,
reported in 2009 ACJ 2020 and he also relied upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Sharada G and others,
reported in 2010 ACJ 977. He further contended that the
deceased was not a third party and there is no provision
wherein an insured may claim compensation from himself.
Under such circumstances, the Tribunal has erred in
awarding the compensation.
Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr on 2 April, 2013
In order to substantiate the said fact, he relied upon the
decision in the case of Reshma Kumari and others V.
Madan Mohan and another reported in 2013 ACJ 1253.
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, he
prays for dismissal of the appeal filed by the
appellant/insurer and allowing the cross-objection.