Back
A.R.MISRA, UMESH C.BANERJEE
Ramesh Kumar: National Insurance Company LTD. : National Insurance Co. LTD. : National Insurance Co. LTD. : National Insurance Co. LTD. : National Insurance Co. LTD. : Kona Negeswara Rao: New India Assurance Co. LTD. : New India Assurance Co. : Nation – Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Company LTD. : Ramesh Kumar: Krishni: Pavankumar Keshavlal Shah: Sushil Kumar: Sushil Kumar: Oriental Fire And Gen. Ins. Company LTD. : Manjulaben Virji: Lalitha: Lalitha: National Insurance Company LTD. : Hatuben: Dundaiah Shanka – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Misra, J.—Leave granted.
2. The aforesaid sets of cases have been classified in three categories, which raises common question about the liability of payment of compensation by the Insurance Company under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Category I
CA No. 5010 of 1999, C.A. No. 5051/1999, C.A. No. 623/1997, C.A. No. 40/1986, C.A. No. 5457 of 2001 (arising out of SLP (C) 20312/1997), C.A. No. 5458 of 2001 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 20313 of 1997), C.A. Nos. 3393-3395 of 1996, C.A. Nos. 10846-10850 of 1996, C.A. No. 5459 of 2001 (arising out SLP (C) No. 13954 of 2000), C.A. No. 5460 of 2001 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 14855 of 2000), C.A. Nos. 950-957 of 1999, C.A. No. 1090 of 1999, C.A. No. 521 of 1993, C.A. No. 522 of 1993, C.A. No. 523 of 1993, C.A. Nos. 5461-62 of 2001, (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 15554-15555 of 2000), C.A. No. 1249 of 1999, C.A. No. 1253 of 1999, C.A. No. 1255 of 1999, C.A. No. 1254 of 1999, C.A. No. 1251 of 1999, C.A. No. 1252 of 1999, C.A. No. 5463 of 2001, (arising out of SLP No. 3938 of 1996), C.A. No. 6542 of 1994, C.A. No. 6543 of 1994, C.A. No. 6544 of 1994 and C.A. No. 6545 of 1994.
Category II
C.A. No. 5385 of 2001 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 9873 of 2000)
None of the listed cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. There are no keywords such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or "disapproved" in the provided summaries. Therefore, based solely on the information given, no case law is identified as bad law.
Followed/Clarified:
New India Assurance Company LTD. VS Satpal Singh - 1999 10 Supreme 87: The statement that "Under the 1988 Motor Vehicles Act, Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to gratuitous passenger" appears to establish a legal principle or clarification. Since no subsequent treatment is mentioned, it can be considered a foundational or upheld principle.
Distinguished/Important Point:
Mallawwa VS Oriental Insurance Co. LTD. - 1998 9 Supreme 70: This case discusses the correct test for determining whether a passenger was carried for hire or reward, emphasizing the systematic carrying of passengers. The language "Important Point" suggests this case is regarded as a significant authority or clarification in this area. There is no indication it has been overruled or criticized, so it remains a relevant legal point.
The treatment pattern for these cases appears to be that they are either accepted, followed, or serve as important clarifications in their respective legal contexts. No evidence suggests they have been overruled or negatively treated.
None. The treatment of both cases appears clear from the provided summaries, with no indication of uncertainty or ambiguous treatment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
