Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Rambha Devi...
Checking relevance for N. JAYASREE VS CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Kaushnuma Begum VS New India Assurance Company LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Union Of India VS M. Aslam...
Checking relevance for Nagappa VS Gurudayal Singh...
Checking relevance for The APSRTC, rep. by its General Manager VS M. Ramadevi...
Checking relevance for Sosamma Abraham, W/o. Abraham Kuruvila VS Santhosh. G. , S/o. Gopalan...
Sosamma Abraham, W/o. Abraham Kuruvila VS Santhosh. G. , S/o. Gopalan - 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 892 : Under Section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a private premises where vehicles have access and where loading/unloading activities take place—such as the property where the petitioner, a 54-year-old coolie worker, was injured—can be treated as a ''''public place'''' for the purpose of determining liability under Section 147. The court held that when an accident occurs in such a private premises involving motor vehicles used for loading/unloading, the place qualifies as a public place under the Act. As a result, the insurer is bound to indemnify the insured, and all respondents (driver, owner, and insurer) are jointly and severally liable for compensation. The petitioner, having sustained serious injuries to his right hand due to the negligence of the driver, is entitled to compensation under the Act.Checking relevance for Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Manjula Kabiraj Das...
Checking relevance for Fuleshwari Tamrakar W/o Late Ramdas VS Varun Kumar Sinha Constable No. 1601...
Checking relevance for ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. VS Paramata Raja Sekhar...
Checking relevance for Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. VS M. Venkata Subba Rao...
Checking relevance for UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS SURESH K. K. ...
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS SURESH K. K. - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 606 : Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a coolie-worker who was injured in an accident while sitting beside the driver of an auto rickshaw (a goods carriage vehicle) is entitled to claim compensation. The court held that the owner of the vehicle is guilty of breach of the conditions of the insurance policy, and despite the claimant being a coolie-worker, he is in a position to realize dues from the owner of the vehicle. The appeal was allowed on this basis.Checking relevance for Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Dyamavva...
Checking relevance for SHARANAMMA VS MANAGING DIRECTOR, DIVISIONAL CONTR. , NORTH-EAST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION...
Checking relevance for K. Nandakumar VS Managing Director, Thanthal Periyar Transport Corporation...
Checking relevance for Indira Gopinatha Menon VS Arya Bhangy Motors...
Indira Gopinatha Menon VS Arya Bhangy Motors - 2016 0 Supreme(Ker) 1415 : Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in cases of compensation for death of a coolie worker due to a motor vehicle accident, the court may grant a 30% enhancement to the income fixed for the deceased, taking into account the unique circumstances of coolie workers—such as the irregular availability of work, lack of steady wage increases, absence of retirement age, and the impact of cost of living and price hikes on their labor cost. This enhancement is to be reckoned in the future and is applicable even though coolie workers are not self-employed in the traditional sense.Checking relevance for Nungshiton Begum VS United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ...
Checking relevance for Tanulata Pradhan, daughter of Late Charan Pradhan of Village: Maligaon (Sadusahi), PO: Sadagoin VS Mahendra Prasad...
Checking relevance for Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Meena Devi...
Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Meena Devi - 2008 0 Supreme(Pat) 1518 : Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a coolie is considered ''''any person'''' within the purview of Section 147 and is entitled to claim compensation in the event of death or personal injury arising out of a motor accident occurring in course of employment. This entitlement arises because the coolie acts within the scope of his authority and in the course of employment for and on behalf of the owner. If the vehicle involved is covered under an insurance policy, the insurer is liable to pay compensation to the coolie, as the owner is vicariously liable for the accident. This principle is supported by decisions of the Hon''''ble Apex Court, which affirm that workmen such as drivers, conductors, and coolies fall within the definition of ''''any person'''' under the Act and are entitled to compensation under Section 147 when injured or killed in a motor accident during the course of their employment.
