Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Court: rajasthan Year: 1999 Page 2 of about 13 results (0.044 seconds)

Dec 13 1999 (HC)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sharda and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-13-1999

Reported in : 2001ACJ1936

v.s. kokje, j.1. this is an appeal by the insurance company on two points. the first point is as to whether the liability of the insurance company was unlimited, as taken by the motor accidents claims tribunal deciding the case and the second point is as to whether the quantum of compensation granted was exorbitant, in the circumstances of the case.2. on the first point, the learned counsel for the insurance company now feels satisfied that he has no case, as under the policy extra premium has been paid for making the liability of the insurance company unlimited. he, therefore, does not press the first point. so far as the second point is concerned, an insurance company can contest the case on merits of grant of compensation only in exceptional circumstances. this is an appeal arising out of an accident, the claim petition in respect of which was governed by the motor vehicles act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the grounds on which the insurance company could defend the claim petition were limited and on the point of quantum of compensation the insurance company could not contest the case. section 110-c(2-a) of the act provided that where, in the course of any inquiry, the claims tribunal is satisfied that-(i) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or (ii) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, the tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, direct .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 13 1999 (HC)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sharda and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-13-1999

Reported in : 2(2000)ACC648; 2000(2)WLC132

v.s. kokje, j.1. this is an appeal by the insurance company on two points. the first point is as to whether the liability of the insurance company was unlimited, as taken by the motor accident claims tribunal deciding the case and the second point is as to whether the quantum of compensation granted was exorbitant, in the circumstances of the case.2. on the first point, the learned counsel for the insurance company now feel satisfied that he has no case, as under the policy extra premium has been paid for making the liability of the insurance company unlimited. he, therefore, does not press the first point. so far as the second point is concerned, an insurance company can contest the case on merits of grant of compensation only in exceptional circumstances. this is an appeal arising out of an accident, the claim petition in respect of which was governed by the motor vehicles act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the ground on which the insurance company could defend the claim petition were limited and on the point of quantum of compensation the insurance company could not contest the case. section 110-c(2-a) of the act provided that where, in the course of any inquiry, the claims tribunal is satisfied that--(i) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or (ii) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, the tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, direct .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 22 1999 (HC)

Sahab Ram and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Decided on : Dec-22-1999

Reported in : 2000WLC(Raj)UC464; 2000(2)WLN554

bhagwati prasad, j.1. in this revision petition, an application has been moved on behalf of respondent no. 4 wherein it has been alleged that he had filed a caveat and the petitioners had knowledge of it. since the applicant having filed a caveat had the right of hearing before the matter was taken up for admission. the orders were passed without hearing the applicant. therefore, the order of admission and stay passed by this court on 21.10.1999 deserves to be re ailed.2. the case was taken up for arguments on the question whether a caveat is permissible in criminal matters. the arguments were heard on 2.12.1999 and the order was reserved.3. learned counsel for the respondent/applicant urged that the rajasthan high court rules, 1952 makes a provision under rule 159 that as and when a caveat is lodged, the registrar will give notice of the lodging of the appeal and it would be required that appellant/ petitioner will furnish a copy of the appeal/petition or application to the caveator. the caveator is entitled to notice of the petition.4. learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the procedure prescribed under rule 159 of the rajasthan high court rules, 1952 having not been followed the order of admission and stay deserves to be recalled. he has placed reliance on a decision of this court delivered in the matter of hari ram v. ratanlal wherein this court has held that caveat having been filed in a writ petition, the respondent was entitled to notice. the notice having .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //