//
archives

insurance co ltd

This tag is associated with 26 posts

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s. 173 – Motor accident – Resulting in death – Claim for compensation – Award by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Appeal by insurer contending that application for claim being u/s 173, not maintainable in view of s.53 of Employees States Insurance Act, 1948 – Appeal dismissed by High Court =On appeal, Held: Entitlement to the claim to be worked out by the Tribunal by taking note of s. 53 – Employees States Insurance Act, 1948 – s. 53. Regional Director, ESI Corporation and Anr. v. Francis De Costa and Anr. 1993 Suppl.(4) SCC 100; A. Trehan v. Associated Electrical Agencies 1996(4) SCC 255 and Bharagath Engg. v. R. Rangamayaki 2003(2)SCC 138, relied on. Case Law Reference: 1993 Suppl.(4) SCC 100 Relied on Para 6 1996(4) SCC 255 Relied on Para 7 2003(2) SCC 138 Relied on Para 8 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3324 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 28.10.2002 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in FAFO No. 2019 of 2002. Atul Nanda, R. Hakeem, Sanjay Bhardwaj and P.N. Puri for the Appellants. K. Radhakrishnan, B. Sunita Rao, Sunita Sharma, S.N. Terdol and Sushma Suri for the Respondents.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3324 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 5989 of 2003) National Insurance Co. Ltd. ….Appellant Versus Hamida Khatoon and Ors. ….Respondents JUDGMENT Dr. ARIJTI PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division … Continue reading

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s. 166 – Fatal accident of a 22 year old student having brilliant career – Claim for compensation by his parents – Tribunal awarding compensation estimating his monthly income at Rs. 18,000/ Dependency of parents calculated at 1/3 of his income – Cross appeals – High court maintaining estimated income, while holding the dependency as 2/3 of the income – On appeal, held: Income of the deceased should have been estimated at Rs. 25,000/- pm – Deduction of 1/3 of the income justified. Respondents-claimants filed a petition u/s. 166 of Motor Vehicles act, 1988 for the death of their 22 year old son in a motor accident. They made a claim of Rs. 75 lakhs compensation on the premise that while he was doing his studies in U.K., he was earning Rs. 80,000/- per month in a part time job. After competition of his studies, he got an offer in a U.S. Based company at an annual salary of Rs. 18 lakhs. Tribunal passed the award considering his earning capability as Rs. 18,000/- per month and deducting 2/3 thereof as his personal expenses. In view of age of the claimants multiplier of 13 applied. Claimants filed an appeal seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation. Their plea was that dependency of the parents should have been considered at 2/3rd of the income and that expenses incurred during treatment should have been awarded. Cross-objection was filed by the Insurance Company. High court maintained the estimated income of the deceased, but opined that dependency of the claimants should have been at 2/3rd of the income. A sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- was also awarded towards medical expenses. Hence, the present cross-appeals. =Allowing the appeal filed by the claimants and dismissing that filed by the Insurance Company, the Court HELD: 1.1. The fact that the deceased was a brilliant student is not in dispute. He had graduated in Business Administration in U.K. Even as a student, in a job on a part-time basis he was being paid a salary of Rs.80,000/- per month ((UK

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. __3482______OF 2009 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2997 of 2007] ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. …APPELLANT VERSUS DEO PATODI & ORS. … RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. _3492_______OF 2009 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3807 of 2007] … Continue reading

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – ss. 158(6), 166(4), 196 – Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1950 – r. 150 – Motor accident – Compensation – In cases of hit and run unidentified vehicles; uninsured vehicles; gratuitous passengers; passengers in goods vehicles; procedural delays in adjudication/settlement of claims; and where compensation amount does not reach the claimants, directions issued and suggestions made by the Court – Directions to the police authorities and claims tribunals for implementation of provisions u/ss. 158(6), 166(4), 196 and r. 150 – Direction to Insurance companies to lodge complaint in cases of forged driving licences – Suggestions made for legislative/executive interference to amend and enact more comprehensive law – Suggestions also made to Insurance Companies. In the instant Special Leave Petition, the Court addressed to four problems generally faced in motor accident cases – (i) Victims who do not receive compensation in cases, that is (a) hit and run vehicles which remain unidentified. (b) offending vehicles not having insurance cover and (c) vehicles with third party insurance carrying persons not covered by insurance (gratuitous passengers and pillion riders etc.). (ii) Practice of using goods vehicles for passenger transport (iii) Procedural delay in adjudication/settlement of claims by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. (iv) The entire compensation amount not reaching and benefitting the victims and their families. =Adjourning the matter, the Court gave following directions / suggestions: Suggestions For Legislative and Executive Intervention [Problems (i) and (ii)]: 1.1. To ensure that all accident victims get compensation, it is necessary to formulate a more comprehensive scheme for payment of compensation to the victims of road accidents, in place of the present system of third party insurance. [Para 22] 1.2. An alternative scheme involves the collection of a one time (life time) third party insurance premium by a Central Insurance Agency in respect of every vehicle sold (in a manner similar to the collection of life time road tax). The fund created by collection of such third party insurance can be augmented/supplemented by an appropriate road accident cess/surcharge on the price of petrol/diesel sold across the country. Such a hybrid model which involves collection of a fixed life time premium in regard to each vehicle plus imposition of a road accident cess may provide a more satisfactory solution in a vast country like India. This will also address a major grievance of insurance companies that their outgoings by way of compensation in motor accident claims is four times the amount received as motor insurance premia. The general insurance companies may however continue with optional insurance to provide cover against damage to the vehicle and injury to the owner. [Para 23] 1.3. A more realistic and easier alternative is to continue with the present system of third party insurance with two changes: (I) Define `third party’ – to cover any accident victim (that is any third party, other than the owner) and increase the premia, if necessary. (ii) Increase the quantum of compensation payable under Section 161 of the Act in case of hit and run motor accidents. [Para 24] 1.4. There is an urgent need for laying down and enforcing Road safety measures and establishment of large number of Trauma Centres and first aid centres. It is also necessary to consider the establishment of a Road Safety Bureau to lay down Road Safety Standards and norms, enforce Road safety measures, establish and run Trauma Centres, establish First Aid Centres in Petrol Stations, and carry out research/data collection for accident prevention. [Para 25] 1.5. The Central Government may consider amendment of the Second Schedule to the Act to rectify the several mistakes therein and rationalize the compensation payable thereunder. [Para 27] U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Trilok Chandra 1996 (4) SCC 362; Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 (6) SCC 121, referred to. 1.6. Where there is no insurance cover for a vehicle, the owner should be directed to offer security or deposit an amount, adequate to satisfy the award that may be ultimately passed, as a condition precedent for release of the seized vehicle involved in the accident. If such security or cash deposit is not made, within a period of three months, appropriate steps may be taken for disposal of the vehicle and hold the sale proceeds in deposit until the claim case is disposed of. The appropriate Governments may consider incorporation of a rule on the lines of Rule 6 of the Delhi Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008 in this behalf. [Para 28] 1.7. In place of the provisions relating to Accident tribunals and award of compensation in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and other statutes dealing with accidents and compensation, enacting a comprehensive and unified statute dealing with accidents may be considered. [Para 26] Direction to Police Authorities: [Problem (i)]: 1.8. Section 196 of the Act provides that whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be driven in contravention of the provisions of Section 146 shall be punishable with imprisonment which may be extended to three months, or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1000/-, or with both. Though the statute requires prosecution of the driver and owner of uninsured vehicles, this is seldom done. Thereby a valuable deterrent is ignored. Therefore, it is directed that the Director Generals to issue instructions to prosecute drivers and owners of uninsured vehicles under Section 196 of the Act. [Para 10] Direction to Police Authorities [Problem (iii)]: 2. The Legislature tried to reduce the period of pendency of claim cases and quicken the process of determination of compensation by making two significant changes in the Act, by Amendment Act 54 of 1994, making it mandatory for registration of a motor accident claim within one month of receipt of first information of the accident, without the claimants having to file a claim petition. Neither the police nor the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals have made any effort to implement the mandatory provisions of the Act viz. s. 158 (6) and s. 166 (4). If these provisions are faithfully and effectively implemented, it will be possible for the victims of accident and/or their families to get compensation, in a span of few months. There is, therefore, an urgent need for the concerned police authorities and Tribunals to follow the mandate of these provisions. [Para 4] General Insurance Council v. State of A.P. 2007 (12) SCC 354, relied on. 2.1. The Director General of Police of each State is directed to instruct all Police Stations in his State to comply with the provisions of Section 158(6) of the Act. The Station House Officers of the jurisdictional police stations shall submit Accident Information Report (AIR) in Form No. 54 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 to the jurisdictional Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal, within 30 days of the registration of the FIR. The police should also collect and furnish the following additional particulars in the AIR to the Tribunal: (i) The age of the victims at the time of accident; (ii) The income of the victim; (iii) The names and ages of the dependent family members. [Para 8] 2.2. The AIR shall be accompanied by the attested copies of the FIR, site sketch/mahazar/photographs of the place of occurrence, driving licence of the driver, insurance policy (and if necessary, fitness certificate) of the vehicle and postmortem report (in case of death) or the Injury/Wound certificate (in the case of injuries). The names/addresses of injured or dependant family members of the deceased should also be furnished to the Tribunal. [Para 8] 2.3. Simultaneously, copy of the AIR with annexures thereto shall be furnished to the concerned insurance company to enable the Insurer to process the claim. [Para 8] 2.4. The police shall notify the first date of hearing fixed by the Tribunal to the victim (injured) or the family of the victim (in case of death) and the driver, owner and insurer. If so directed by the Tribunal, the police may secure their presence on the first date of hearing. [Para 8] 2.5. To avoid any administrative difficulties in immediate implementation of Sections 158(6) of the Act, such implementation to be carried out in three stages. In the first stage, all police stations/claims Tribunals in the NCT Region and State Capital regions shall implement the provisions by end of April 2010. In the second stage, all the police stations/claims Tribunals in district headquarters regions shall implement the provisions in the first stage by the end of August 2010. In the third stage, all police stations/Claims Tribunals shall implement the provisions by the end of December, 2010. [Para 9] 2.6. The Transport Department, Health Department and other concerned departments shall extend necessary co-operation to the Director-Generals to give effect to Section 158 (6). [Para 11] Directions to Motor Accident Claims Tribunals [Problem (iii)]: 3. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to instruct all Claims Tribunals in his State to register the reports of accidents received under Section 158(6) of the Act as applications for compensation under Section 166(4) of the Act and deal with them without waiting for the filing of claim applications by the injured or by the family of the deceased. The Registrar General shall ensure that necessary Registers, forms and other support is extended to the Tribunal to give effect to Section 166(4) of the Act. [Para 12] 3.1. The Tribunals are required to follow the steps mentioned in para 13 without prejudice to the discretion of each Tribunal to follow such summary procedure as it deems fit as provided under Section 169 of the Act. Many Tribunals instead of holding an inquiry into the claim by following suitable summary procedure, as mandated by Section 168 and 169 of the Act, tend to conduct motor accident cases like regular civil suits. This should be avoided. The Tribunal shall take an active role in deciding and expeditious disposal of the applications for compensation and make effective use of Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872, to determine the just compensation. [Para 14] Suggestions to Insurance Companies [Problem (iii)]: 4.1. In cases of death, where the liability of the insurer is not disputed, the insurance companies should, without waiting for the decision of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal or a settlement before the Lok Adalat, endeavour to pay to the family (Legal representatives) of the deceased, compensation as per the standard formula determined by the decisions of this Court. [Para 15] 4.2. In cases of injuries to any accident victim, where the liability is not disputed, the insurer should offer treatment at its cost to the injured, without waiting for an award of the Tribunal. If insurance companies can meet the bills for treatment of those who have taken a medical insurance policy, there is no reason why they should not extend a similar treatment to the accident victims of vehicles insured with them. [Para 16] Suggestion to Insurance Companies [Problem (iv)]: 5.1. To protect and preserve the compensation amount awarded to the families of the deceased victim special schemes may be considered by the insurance companies in consultation with the Life Insurance Corporation of India, State Bank of India or any other Nationalized Banks. One proposal is for formulation of a scheme in consultation with Nationalized Banks under which the compensation is kept in fixed deposit for an appropriate period and interest is paid by the Bank monthly to the claimants without any need for claimants having to approach either the court or their counsel or the Bank for that purpose. The scheme should ensure that the amount of compensation is utilized only for the benefit of the injured claimants or in case of death, for the benefit of the dependent family. [Para 18] 5.2. The Insurance companies may also consider offering an annuity instead of lump sum compensation. They may prepare an annuity scheme with the involvement of Life Insurance Corporation of India or its own actuaries, under which they can pay a monthly annuity to the widow (for life) and to minor children (till they attain majority) and in addition a lump sum at the end of 20 or 25 years to the widow. The benefit of such annuity scheme may also be extended to victims who are permanently disabled in accidents. Once such schemes are in place, the victims and the Tribunal will have some choice in the manner of payment of compensation. [Para 19] Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India 1991 (4) SCC 584; General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 1994 (2) SCC 176, referred to. Suggestion to Insurance Companies [Problem (i)] 6. Whenever the insurance companies find that the driver of the insured vehicle possessed fake/forged driving license, they should lodge a complaint with the concerned police for prosecution. This will reduce the incidence of fake licences and increase the road travel safety. [Para 20] Case Law Reference: 2007 (12) SCC 354 Referred to. Para 4 1991 (4) SCC 584 Referred to. Para 5 1994 (2) SCC 176 Referred to. Para 5 2009 (6) SCC 121 Referred to. Para 17 1996 (4) SCC 362 Referred to. Para 27 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No(s). 11801-11804 of 2005. From the Judgment & Order dated 7.12.2004 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O. No. 4845, 4846, 4847 & 4848 of 2003. Gopal Subramonium, SG (A.C.) Manoj Swarup, Lalita Kohil (for Manoj Swarup & Co.) for the Petitioner. S.L. Gupta, Goodwill Indeevar, Anand Vardhan Sharma, for the Respondent.

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 11801-11804 of 2005 Jai Prakash ……. Petitioner Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. ……. Respondents O R D E R R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. We propose to address four problems frequently faced in motor accident claim cases under the Motor … Continue reading

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988: s. 168 – Motor accident – Driver not holding valid driving licence – Tribunal’s direction to Insurance Company to pay compensation to dependants of victim and to recover the amounts from driver and owner of offending vehicle – Executing court directing Insurance Company to file suits for recovery – High Court declining to interfere – HELD: Tribunal must be held to have issued the directions in exercise of its inherent powers, keeping in view the social justice doctrine and in the interest of claimants – Impugned orders are set aside – Executing courts will proceed with the execution expeditiously – Execution of awards made by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Social Justice. The claim petitions filed by the dependents of the persons killed in motor accidents were allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals. However, as the drivers of the offending vehicles did not hold valid licences at the time of accidents, the Tribunals directed the Insurance Company to pay the amounts to the claimants and recover it from the respondent-drivers and owners of the offending vehicles. In the execution petitions, the executing court directed the Insurance Company to file suits for recovery. The petitions filed by the Insurance Company under Article 227 of the Constitution, having been dismissed by the High Court, it filed the appeals. -Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The rights and liabilities of the parties to the contract of insurance would be governed thereby subject to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. One of the conditions which would make the insurance company liable to reimburse the owner of the vehicle in respect of payment of the amount of compensation in favour of a claimant is that the driver of the vehicle must possess a valid driving licence. In the instant case, the licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was proved to be invalid. The courts, however, keeping in view the social justice doctrine wherefor the Act was enacted and in the interest of the claimants ,had been passing orders directing Insurance Company to make the payment and recover the same from the drivers and/or owners of the vehicles. The directions by the Tribunal must be held to have been issued in exercise of its inherent power. It would be travesty of justice, if the Insurance Company, which is directed to pay the amount, has to face immense difficulties in executing a decree. The impugned judgments cannot be sustained, and are set aside. The executing courts are directed to proceed with the execution and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. [Para 7 and 10] National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur (2004) 2 SCC 1; Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shri Nanjappan & Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 224; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai (2006) 3 SCALE 519; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Zaharulnisha (2008) 12 SCC 385; and Dedappa v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2008) 2 SCC 595, relied on. Case Law Reference: (2004) 13 SCC 224 relied on para 6 (2004) 2 SCC 1 relied on para 8 (2006) 3 SCALE 519 relied on para 8 (2008) 12 SCC 385 relied on para 8 (2008) 2 SCC 595 relied on para 8 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 5082 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 25.09.2006 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.R. No. 3231 of 2004. WITH C.A. No. 5083 of 2009. Nanita Sharma, Satbir Pillaina, M.K. Bhardwaj, Ashok K. Mahajan, A.K. De, Rajesh Dwivedi, R.C. Kaushik, Madhuri Gupta, Rani Chhabra for the appearing parties.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.3372 of 2007) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. … Appellant Versus Kusum & Ors. … Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.4176 of 2007) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. … Continue reading

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – ss. 147 and 149 – Motor accident – Compensation – Liability of insurer – Insurance policy taken by the owner of the vehicle covering six passengers including the driver – Vehicle while driven by father of the owner, met with an accident – Passengers in excess of the number covered by the insurance policy, travelling in the vehicle at the time of accident – Death/injury to the passengers – Claim petitions – Liability of the insurer – Held: Is confined to the number of persons covered by the insurance policy only and liability to pay the other passengers is that of the owner of the vehicle – Persons travelling in the vehicle in excess of the permitted number of six passengers, though entitled to be compensated by the owner of the vehicle, would still be entitled to receive the compensation amount from the insurer, who could recover it from the insured owner of the vehicle – There can be no pick and choose method to identify the five passengers, excluding the driver, in respect of whom compensation would be payable by the Insurance Company – In the interest of justice, Insurance Company directed to deposit the total amount of compensation awarded to the claimants which would be disbursed to the claimants – Insurance Company would be entitled to recover the amounts paid by it, in excess of its liability, from the owner of the vehicle, by putting the decree into execution. Respondent No. 5-owner of the vehicle obtained an insurance policy insuring his jeep with a sitting capacity of six persons including the driver, for a certain period. During the said period, the father of respondent No. 5, drove the insured vehicle carrying fifteen passengers. The vehicle fell into the ditch resulting in the death of the respondent’s father and the death of the majority of the passengers while causing serious injuries to the remaining passengers. The legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition. The Tribunal awarded compensation in favour of the claimants holding that carrying a larger number of passengers than was permitted in terms of the Insurance policy, did not amount to breach of the terms and conditions of the Policy and the Insurance Company would still be liable since the vehicle was legally insured. The High Court upheld the order passed by the Tribunal, but enhanced the amount of compensation. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeals. =Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 In order to fix the liability of the insurer, the provisions of Section 147 have to be read with Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which deals with the duty of the insurer to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks. The third party risk in the instant case involves purported breach of the conditions contained in the insurance agreement executed by and between the insurer and the insured. [Paras 20 and 22] [1041-E-F; 1040-F] 1.2. The liability of the insurer is confined to the number of persons covered by the insurance policy and not beyond the same. In the instant case, since the insurance policy of the owner of the vehicle covered six occupants of the vehicle in question, including the driver, the liability of the insurer would be confined to six persons only, notwithstanding the larger number of persons carried in the vehicle. Such excess number of persons would have to be treated as third parties, but since no premium had been paid in the policy for them, the insurer would not be liable to make payment of the compensation amount as far as they are concerned. However, the liability of the Insurance Company to make payment even in respect of persons not covered by the insurance policy continues under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the Act, as it would be entitled to recover the same if it could prove that one of the conditions of the policy had been breached by the owner of the vehicle. In the instant case, any of the persons travelling in the vehicle in excess of the permitted number of six passengers, though entitled to be compensated by the owner of the vehicle, would still be entitled to receive the compensation amount from the insurer, who could then recover it from the insured owner of the vehicle. [Para 24] [1042-D-G] 1.3. In the instant case, the insurance policy taken out by the owner of the vehicle was in respect of six passengers, including the driver, travelling in the vehicle. The liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation was limited to six persons travelling inside the vehicle only the liability for payment of the other passengers in excess of six passengers would be that of the owner of the vehicle who would be required to compensate the injured or the family of the deceased to the extent of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. [Paras 25 and 26] [1042-H; 1043-A-B] 1.4. The number of persons to be compensated being in excess of the number of persons who could validly be carried in the vehicle, the question which arises is one of apportionment of the amounts to be paid. Since there can be no pick and choose method to identify the five passengers, excluding the driver, in respect of whom compensation would be payable by the Insurance Company, to meet the ends of justice the procedure adopted in *Baljit Kaur’s case is applied. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit with the Tribunal, the total amount of compensation awarded to all the claimants within the stipulated period and the amounts so deposited be disbursed to the claimants in respect to their claims. The Insurance Company would be entitled to recover the amounts paid by it, in excess of its liability, from the owner of the vehicle, by putting the decree into execution. For the said purpose, the total amount of the six Awards which are the highest would be construed as the liability of the Insurance Company. After deducting the said amount from the total amount of all the Awards deposited in terms of this order, the Insurance Company would be entitled to recover the balance amount from the owner of the vehicle as if it is an amount decreed by the Tribunal in favour of the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company would not be required to file a separate suit in this regard in order to recover the amounts paid in excess of its liability from the owner of the vehicle. [Paras 26 and 27] [1043-D-H; 1044-A-C] *National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baljit Kaur (2004) 2 SCC 1 – relied on. National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Anjana Shyam and Ors. (2007) 7 SCC 445; National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Challa Bharathamma and Ors. 2004 AIR SCW 5301; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satpal Singh and Ors. (2000) 1 SCC 237; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Asha Rani and Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 223; National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi (2002) 7 SCC 456; Mallawwa and Ors. vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. (1999) 1 SCC 403; National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 – referred to. Case Law Reference: (2007) 7 SCC 445 Referred to Para 11 2004 AIR SCW 5301 Referred to Para 12 (2003) 2 SCC 223 Referred to Para 12, 16, 17 (2002) 7 SCC 456 Referred to Para 12 (2000) 1 SCC 237 Referred to Para 12, 14, 16, 17 (1999) 1 SCC 403 Referred to Para 16, 17 (2004) 3 SCC 297 Referred to Para 18 (2004) 2 SCC 1 Relied on Para 26 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1928 of 2011. From the Judgment & Order dated 25.09.2007 of the High Court of Uttarkhand at Nainital, in A.O. No. 311 of 2006. With C.A. Nos. 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934 & 1935 of 2011. A.K. De, Keshab Upadhyay, Debasis Misra for the Appellant.

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1928 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.24188 of 2008) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. … Appellants Vs. ?K.M. Poonam & Ors. … Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1929, 1930, 1931 OF 2011 (@ SLP(C)NOS.24212, 24210, 24211) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1932, 1933, 1934 … Continue reading

motor accident case – contributory negligence -while driving the motor vehicle on the fateful day, met with an accident not because of the fault of the owner of the vehicle or because of the fault of the other vehicle, but because of the oil spill on the road. Therefore, the negligence can be attributable only on the person who was driving the vehicle and hence, is not entitled to compensation under the Insurance Policy. Therefore, the High Court was justified in invoking the beneficial legislation and in directing the Insurance Company to pay limited amount by way of compensation to the injured person of an accident arising out of the use of a motor cycle on the basis of “no fault liability,” since the accident has arisen 3

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO..7823 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6617 of 2011) A. Sridhar ………….. Appellant versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. …………..Respondents J U D G M E N T H.L. DATTU, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,873,445 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com