Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Once the objections raised by the petitioner is taken into consideration by Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Jind and an equitable jurisdiction is exercised, such view cannot outrightly be said to be perverse, improper or based on misappropriation of law and facts.
“The registered owner cannot absolve himself of the liability by contending that he has transferred the offending vehicle to a third person prior to the date of the accident.”
“Right to recover the compensation will also be available to the Insurance Company where the offending vehicle is being operated at the time of the accident at a place for which it does not have a valid Permit.”
Supreme Court said that when the defects are not intimated, and the warranty class has not been complied with, the Classification Certificate automatically becomes invalid.
“The report of the surveyor can be contested by the insured for valid reasons. The insurer is required to consider the report of the surveyor appointed by it although he is not bound to accept the report in entirety.”
Allahabad High Court rejected the contention of the petitioner that since forms are filled up by the agents/officers of LIC, anything omitted would not constitute ground for repudiation/rejection of the claim.
While enhancing compensation in a motor accident claims case, the Delhi High Court opined that rash and negligent driving does not necessarily mean excessive speed. Not taking due care while driving and overtaking amounts to rash and negligent driving.
While deliberating over several appeals, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court decided the questions of liability and ‘pay and recover’ in favour of the appellant Insurance Company
Delhi High Court was of the view that it would be within its right to dismiss the petition at the threshold if the petition is not maintainable, otherwise an unacceptable position of law would arise where despite a petition being not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction would need to be entertained.
Madhya Pradesh High Court: While dismissing an appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging award passed by
Supreme Court: In a case where an Insurance Company had refused to settle an insurance claim on non-submission of the duplicate certified
Supreme Court: The bench of Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ has held that an Insurance Company cannot repudiate a claim
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., considered the issue of whether the insurance company would be liable to pay amount in a
Bombay High Court: Bharati Dangre, J., Whether the Insurance Company can be absolved of its liability to pay compensation under the Employees
Bombay High Court: Noting that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Member did not properly determine just and proper compensation, V.M. Deshpande, J.,
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana: Justice MSK Jaiswal (President) and Meena Ramanathan (Member) upheld the District Commission’s Order observing the consequence
Madras High Court: The Division Bench of Pushpa Sathyanaryana and S. Kannammal, JJ., revised the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): Dinesh Singh (Presiding Member) addresses matter regarding claiming of insurance cover. Instant appeal was filed under
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Ajit Singh, JJ., allowed the appeal of the claimants in
Chhattisgarh High Court: A Division Bench of P. R. Ramchandra Menon and Parth Prateem Sahu JJ. allowed the appeal and modified the