The Premier Life and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. H. Krishna Sheet and ors. - Court Judgment |
| Motor Vehicles;Insurance |
| Karnataka High Court |
| Jul-22-1960 |
| Regular Appeal (M) No. 101 of 1956 |
| A.R. Somnath Iyer and ;Narayana Pai, JJ. |
| AIR1962Kant171; AIR1962Mys171 |
| Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 96(2) |
| The Premier Life and General Insurance Co. Ltd. |
| H. Krishna Sheet and ors. |
| N. Bheemachary, Adv. |
| K. Vittal Rao, ;N.T. Raghunathan and ;M. Gopalakrishnasetty, Advs. |
.....is bound to pass reasonable order. if not, interference by high court and supreme court is permissible. - bheemacharya's contention that the company can in this appeal question the correctness of the finding of the court below that the accident happened in the manner pleaded by the plaintiff or its estimate of the damages awarded to him, it clearly opposed to the provisions of section 96 (2) of the motor vehicles act which exhaustively enumerate the grounds on which the company could have defended the action in the court below and could sustain its appeal in this court. bheemacharya's contention that the company should be absolved from liability to pay damages on the ground that the motor vehicle was being driven by an unlicensed driver succeed, since it entirely failed to establish that there was any condition attached to the contract of insurance prohibiting the driving of the motor vehicle by a person who was not duly licensed......that the company can in this appeal question the correctness of the finding of the court below that the accident happened in the manner pleaded by the plaintiff or its estimate of the damages awarded to him, it clearly opposed to the provisions of section 96 (2) of the motor vehicles act which exhaustively enumerate the grounds on which the company could have defended the action in the court below and could sustain its appeal in this court. 2. nor can mr. bheemacharya's contention that the company should be absolved from liability to pay damages on the ground that the motor vehicle was being driven by an unlicensed driver succeed, since it entirely failed to establish that there was any condition attached to the contract of insurance prohibiting the driving of the motor vehicle by a person who was not duly licensed. no policy of insurance incorporating any such condition was produced by the company at any stage of the proceedings and not even in this court . this appeal is therefore dismissed with costs of the plaintiff. 3. appeal dismissed.
1. The appellant Company did not choose to intervene in the proceedings in the Court below although admittedly notice of their institution was given to it. Mr. Bheemacharya's contention that the company can in this appeal question the correctness of the finding of the Court below that the accident happened in the manner pleaded by the plaintiff or its estimate of the damages awarded to him, it clearly opposed to the provisions of Section 96 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act which exhaustively enumerate the grounds on which the company could have defended the action in the Court below and could sustain its appeal in this Court.
2. Nor can Mr. Bheemacharya's contention that the company should be absolved from liability to pay damages on the ground that the motor vehicle was being driven by an unlicensed driver succeed, since it entirely failed to establish that there was any condition attached to the contract of insurance prohibiting the driving of the motor vehicle by a person who was not duly licensed. No policy of insurance incorporating any such condition was produced by the company at any stage of the proceedings and not even in this Court . This appeal is therefore dismissed with costs of the plaintiff.
3. Appeal dismissed.