Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2008ACJ1243; AIR2007Raj153; RLW2007(3)Raj1990
..... no. l to 6 fall within the definition of word 'any person' contained in section 147(b)(ii) of the motor vehicles act, 1988 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the act', for short). therefore, the appellant-insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the respondents nos. 1 to 6. fourthly, that since the accident had occurred due ..... tribunal granted a compensation of rs. 6,92,000/-. but as stated above, the appellant-insurance company was directed to pay only 50% of the said amount. since the appellant-insurance company is aggrieved by the said award. hence this appeal before this court.4. mr. virendra agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant has raised two contentions before this court. ..... counsel has relied on the case of dhanraj v. new india assurance co. ltd. and anr. 2004(2) wlc (sc) 783 : rlw 2004(4) sc 549. me has also relied on the case of oriental insurance co. ltd. v. smt. jhuma saha and ors. civil appeal no. 280 of 2007 : arising out of slp @ n. 4753/2004 decided on .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
..... the rider of the vehicle. the amount awarded is also just and proper. though in the lower court it was contended that it was an 'act only policy', the learned counsel for the insurance company conceded that it is a 'comprehensive policy'.5. we have considered the rival contentions of both parties.6. it is an admitted fact that ..... awarded under various heads is also less considering the nature of injuries sustained. so he claimed enhancement of compensation on all heads as well.4. on the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that even going by the evidence of pw1, the injured, no negligence is made out and it is an inevitable accident and ..... that was not observed by the rider of the vehicle in this case. further, the police had registered a case against the 2nd m.a.c.a.1151/09 - :4. :- respondent for rash and negligent driving. further it was fairly conceded that the 2nd respondent was charge-sheeted by the police for rash and negligent driving. under the above .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
..... india. such objection is based on the fact that it is a company incorporated under the 1956 act. respondent no.3 has not given any information as to who are the share holder so as to determine whether the the said life insurance company is other authority and thus state within the meaning of article 12 of the constitution and ..... , para 15) (3) it may also be a relevant factor ..whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is state conferred or state protected. (scc p. 508, para 15) (4) existence of deep and pervasive state control may afford an indication that the corporation is a state agency or instrumentality. (scc p. 508, para 15) (5) if the functions of ..... form and the demand draft were found to be incomplete as the medical questionnaire was not filled by the proposer. as the health questionnaire cwp no.4220 of 2013 -4- had not been filled by the proposer, therefore, it was not possible for the respondents to accept the proposal form and consequently, an intimation was sent on 16 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : II(1995)ACC457; 1995(2)ALT95
..... no. 31 of 1984, the only point which is pressed before me is that the liability of the insurance company is limited to only rs. 50,000/-, the policy being the act policy and that the tribunal erred in making the insurance company liable for the entire amount of compensation awarded to the claimants.2.to appreciate the contention raised before me ..... i.a.no.863 of 1986 and that inspite of that no steps were taken to amend the pleadings.4. sri hanumayya, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company, however, placed before me a copy of the counter filed by the insurance company in the lower tribunal. para 11 of the said counter reads as follows:'11. the maximum ..... 5. it may be pointed out that admittedly the provisions of the code of civil procedure are applicable to the proceedings in question. the provision of order viii rule 4 read with order vi rule 6 of the code of civil procedure make it obligatory on the defendant to state the plea of limit of liability of rs. 50,000 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1975(8)WLN737
..... . the employee's state insurance corporation applied before the employees insurance court, jaipur against the national printing press & its neither ayodhya prasad sharma to enforce its claim and obtained a decree for rs. 918/- & costs, on account of employees contribution which was due under the esi act. the decree was obtained on 29.4 1961. the execution of ..... the decree was sought on 12-7-1962. an objection was raised by ayodhya prasad that the decree is not executable as it is barred by fame reliance was placed on rule 42 of the rajasthan state employees insurance court rules, ..... corporation v b.b. & drum mfg co. : (1967)illj625bom , solar works v. employees si corporation : (1963)iillj597mad and a.k. bros v. esi corporation : (1965)illj1all .4. the learned counsel for insurance corporation also drew the attention of this court to a decision by the learned division bash of this court in the case of employees state .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
..... and was aged 46 years at the time of death.4. in spite of service of notice, the owner of the offending vehicle did not appear and it was the insurance company who contested the proceeding after taking leave under section 170 of the act.5. the specific defence taken by the insurance company in the written statement was that due to ..... in the pleading of the other side and decides to remain ex parte. we are quite conscious that in the proceedings for compensation under the motor vehicles act, when the offending vehicle is insured, the owner of the vehicle may not be interested to appear at the witness box in spite of the fact that he is a party to ..... owner against whom the compensation is claimed or the errant driver whose identity has been disclosed in a civil proceeding.17. therefore, the insurance company in spite of taking leave under section 170 of the act having failed to summon the owner or the driver of the vehicle to disprove the allegation of the claimants of the involvement of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... assured and pay the sum awarded to the claimants by the ld. tribunal.27. the provisions of sub-section 4 and 5 of the section 149 of motor vehicles act, 1988 may be considered as to the liability of the insurer to satisfy the decree at the first instance. 5. keeping in view the settled legal position, i do ..... even to third parties, as in such cases the contract of insurance is non est. 25. no doubt, the respondent ..... was guilty of a willful breach. the insured in such cases, would be entitled to recover the compensation paid to third party in discharge of its statutory liability. (iv) where policy is avoided on proof or facts which renders the insurance policy void under section 149 (2) (b) of the act, the insurance company would not be under obligation to pay .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... assured and pay the sum awarded to the claimants by the ld. tribunal.27. the provisions of sub-section 4 and 5 of the section 149 of motor vehicles act, 1988 may be considered as to the liability of the insurer to satisfy the decree at the first instance. 5. keeping in view the settled legal position, i do ..... even to third parties, as in such cases the contract of insurance is non est. 25. no doubt, the respondent ..... was guilty of a willful breach. the insured in such cases, would be entitled to recover the compensation paid to third party in discharge of its statutory liability. (iv) where policy is avoided on proof or facts which renders the insurance policy void under section 149 (2) (b) of the act, the insurance company would not be under obligation to pay .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : II(1999)ACC224; 1999ACJ547
..... appropriate time.7. the main question that calls for determination is, as to whether the appeal against an order under section 140 of the act is maintainable at the instance of the insurer and as to whether the liability of the owner of a goods vehicle causing the accident and resulting in death of a person carried as ..... learned counsel for respondent no. 2, however, challenges the maintainability of the appeal against an order under section 140 of the act by the insurer. it is his contention that the order under section 140 of the act being not an award, no appeal can lie against the same. it is further submitted that an enquiry under section 140 of ..... insurance co. ltd. against the order of the motor accidents claims tribunal, phulbani, passed under section 140 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') holding the appellant liable to pay the compensation towards no fault liability.2. the brief facts of the case are that on 27.2.1993 at about 4.30 p.m., the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1988)93PLR116
..... the record. now, the question that falls for consideration is at what stage the tribunal is to inquire into the objections available to the insurance company under section 96(2) of the act. should such objections be treated as preliminary issue and be decided by the tribunal in the first instance which in the nature of things would ..... the offending vehicle totally, then the tribunal in the final award by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 96 would direct the owner of the offending vehicle to pay to the insurance company the amount which the insurance company had paid to the claimants in pursuance of the award made under section 92a of the ..... are undisputed. it is stated that a similar application was moved before the tribunal but somehow or other no order was passed on the said application. 4. learned counsel for the applicants cited oriental fire and general insurance co. ltd. v. smt. beasa devi [1986] 59 comp cas 643 (p & h), wherein it has observed that (at page 652) .....
Tag this Judgment!