Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Kriti Agarwal VS Veena Rastogi...
2021 3 Supreme 521 : Yes, a wife of the deceased who has already taken her share through an amicable settlement cannot claim money from insurance afterwards. The Settlement Agreement explicitly states that by signing it, the parties solemnly affirm they have no further claims or demands against each other regarding this matter, and all disputes and differences have been fully and finally settled through mediation. The agreement supersedes all prior negotiations and explicitly bars any future claims, including those related to insurance proceeds, as the entire estate—including insurance policies, bank accounts, and employer-linked benefits—has been jointly agreed to be shared in a 50:50 ratio and is to be processed and distributed as per the terms of the settlement. The wife’s right to any insurance money has been extinguished by the settlement, and she has agreed not to raise any dispute whatsoever henceforth.Checking relevance for Gohar Mohammed VS Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation...
2023 2 Supreme 470 : Under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended in 2022), where death has resulted from an accident, any legal representative of the deceased may file an application for compensation. However, a key proviso states that if a person accepts compensation under Section 164 in accordance with the procedure provided under Section 149, their claims petition before the Claims Tribunal shall lapse. This means that once a claimant (such as a wife) has accepted compensation through an amicable settlement under Section 164 or Section 149, they cannot subsequently claim further compensation through another application to the Claims Tribunal. Therefore, a wife who has already taken her share through an amicable settlement cannot claim insurance money again.Checking relevance for Reliance Life Insurance Co Ltd. VS Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod...
Checking relevance for Gokal Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. VS Axis Bank Ltd. ...
Checking relevance for Madan Mohan VS Jawahar Lal (Dead) Through Lrs. ...
Checking relevance for SHEHAMMAL VS HASAN KHANI RAWTHER...
Checking relevance for New India Assurance Co. Ltd. VS Kalabai...
Checking relevance for Assam Aluminum VS Commissioner, Employees Compensation Claims Tribunal...
2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 187 : A wife who has already taken a sum of money under an amicable settlement deed, which explicitly relinquishes all claims in respect of her deceased husband for all time, cannot subsequently claim insurance compensation. The court held that such a settlement is not permissible under law, particularly in violation of Section 17 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, which declares any agreement by an employee to relinquish rights to compensation as null and void. Therefore, even if the settlement was made amicably, it cannot bar the right to claim compensation under statutory provisions like the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, provided the claim is otherwise valid and not barred by law. However, in this case, the court found that the settlement deed was invalid under Section 17, and thus the claim could proceed, but only through the proper statutory forum (the learned Commissioner), not by abuse of process via writ jurisdiction. The key point is that a wife cannot validly waive her statutory right to compensation through an amicable settlement, and such a waiver is not enforceable under law.Checking relevance for Patanjali Foods Ltd. VS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ...
Checking relevance for Seuli Maity VS Life Insurance Corporation of India...
Checking relevance for Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Munni Kumari, wife of Late Ajeet Kumar...
Checking relevance for Fresenius Medical Care India Private Limited vs Kerry Indev Logistics Private Limited...
Checking relevance for National Insurance Company Ltd. VS Sehtia Shoes...
Checking relevance for Ningamma VS United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ...
Checking relevance for State Of Punjab VS Phulan Rani...
Checking relevance for Bijoy Kumar Dugar VS Bidyadhar Dutta...
Checking relevance for Helen C. Rebello VS Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation...
Checking relevance for Oriental Insurance Comany LTD. VS Meena Variyal...
Checking relevance for BASANTI PANDEY VS LIFE INSURANCE CORPN. OF INDIA...
Checking relevance for Sanjay Madan VS National Insurance Company...
2014 0 Supreme(HP) 1776 : A settlement amount received as a full and final settlement of a claim, in the absence of coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation, precludes the invocation of arbitration or further claims for additional money, including insurance proceeds. In this case, the court held that the appellants'''' acceptance of the settlement amount of Rs. 26,09,668 constituted a full and final settlement of their insurance claim arising from a fire incident, thereby barring any subsequent claim for the balance amount of Rs. 9,30,332. This principle applies equally to a spouse who has already accepted a share of a claim through an amicable settlement—once such a settlement is deemed full and final and not tainted by fraud or coercion, further claims for insurance money are not permissible.Checking relevance for United India Insurance Company Limited VS Shavinder Bains...
Checking relevance for Maharaja Bahadursingh Kasliwal VS Controller of Estate Duty...
1978 0 Supreme(MP) 16 : Yes, a wife of a deceased person who has already taken her share through an amicable settlement can still claim the value of life insurance policies that were taken out on the deceased''''s life, even if the premiums were paid from joint family funds. The court held that a policy of insurance on the life of a deceased person, effected by virtue or in consequence of a settlement made by the deceased, shall be treated as having been effected by the deceased. Furthermore, the value of the policy is the property of the person in whose name it was taken, not of the HUF from where the premiums were paid. Therefore, the deceased''''s wife, as a beneficiary, is entitled to the 1/7th share in the insurance policies (Rs. 25,687) as part of the principal value of the estate, despite having previously received her share in the HUF partition.
