SANJAY KAROL, MANOJ MISRA
Akula Narayana – Appellant
Versus
Oriental Insurance Company Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. liability disputes between appellant and insurer. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments on insurance liability and breach. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's analysis on insurance contract obligations. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. application of pay and recover principle. (Para 12) |
| 5. final decision to allow appeal. (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT
1. Leave granted.
3. There is no dispute inter se parties regarding liability of the second respondent (i.e., owner of the vehicle with which accident was caused). There is also no dispute that the vehicle was insured with the first respondent. The only dispute is whether the insurer should have been absolved totally from its liability to pay the compensation or that the insurer should have been directed to pay and recover the same from the vehicle owner.
5. The High Court on an appeal by the insurer held that though the insurer might have collected additional premium for driver, conductor and cleaner, the policy would not cover the risk of any other person or passenger. Besides that, the vehicle being a five-seater was carrying nine persons, therefore, there was a clear breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and as such the insurer cannot be held
Mata Ram versus National Insurance Company Limited & Another
National Insurance Company Limited versus Swaran Singh
Shamanna & Anr. versus Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.