w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharasthra State, Represented By Its Deputy Manager, Regional Office, Ernakulam v/s Rijawana Jamshed Mulla & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93090TN1938GOI000108

Company & Directors' Information:- J B UNITED PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000MH2014PTC258844

Company & Directors' Information:- J B UNITED PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2014PTC258844

Company & Directors' Information:- I.N. INSURANCE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67200DL1994PTC062554

Company & Directors' Information:- INSURANCE OF INDIA LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67200WB1936PLC008634

Company & Directors' Information:- UNITED CORPORATION LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U99999TN1942PLC003159

    MACA. No. 2281 of 2014

    Decided On, 05 August 2020

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN

    For the Appellant: George Cherian, Sr. Advocate, K.S. Santhi, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, P. Thomas Geeverghese, Advocate.



Judgment Text


1. The appeal is by the Insurance Company alleging that the injured-deceased in the subject accident, was a gratuitous passenger and there could be no liability cast on the insurance company on the strength of the policy covering the vehicle MH-11-F 4369. An incident occurred where a driver, who was a passenger in the offending vehicle, fell off the moving lorry and succumbed to the injuries occasioned. The specific case of the claimants was that the deceased was employed in one lorry among the two travelling together from Kerala to Maharashtra and while he was travelling in the other lorry he slipped down and was run over by the same vehicle. The application was one under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and there is no question to be decided of negligence. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants argued before me that both the vehicles were owned by one person and even when the deceased was travelling in the other vehicle, he was the employee of the registered owner and was travelling as a spare driver; covered under the Proviso to Section 147.

2. One Milind S/o. Bhanudas, narrates the incident in the First Information Statement (FIS). There were two vehicles travelling from Kerala to Maharashtra with rubber wood loaded in them, which load was picked up from the factory of PW1. Each of the vehicles had two drivers, called the first driver and the second driver, and a cleaner. The person who made the FIS was the cleaner of one of the vehicles. PW3 the second driver of the offending vehicle, involved in the accident, was examined before the Tribunal. Both these persons narrated the story in consonance with each other. The narration as indicated from both the FIS and deposition of PW3 is as follows.

3. Two vehicles bearing registration numbers MH-11-M 5097 and MH-11-F-4369 (referred to as the 'offending vehicle' despite there being no negligence of that driver) had come from Maharashtra to Kerala with loads of Dalda. After unloading the same, timber was loaded on to the vehicles from the premises of PW1 and both were proceeding to Maharashtra. Each of the vehicles had two drivers and one cleaner as employees of the registered owner. In the vehicle having registration number MH-11-M 5097, the employees were Jamshed Mulla, the first driver, who is the deceased, Ananda Rao, the second driver and Milind, the cleaner who gave the FIS. In the offending vehicle, the first driver was Sasikanth (first respondent), the second driver Balikhan(PW3) and cleaner Thanaji. While they were proceeding towards Maharashtra on 31.12.2005, vehicle bearing registration No.MH-11-M 5097, driven by the deceased, was running in front of the offending vehicle, driven by the first respondent. The vehicle driven by the deceased brushed against a motor-cycle, but since nothing serious occurred he did not stop. The motorcyclist followed and way-laid the lorry. By this time the offending vehicle MH-11-F 4369 had come to the spot and parked behind MH-11-M 5097. The deceased who had been driving MH-11-M 5097, got out through the left cabin door and boarded the offending vehicle, parked behind. The second driver of the offending vehicle Balikhan (PW3) stepped down from that vehicle and came forward to talk to the motor-cyclists. Bali Khan and Ananda Rao spoke to the motor cyclist and settled the matter in the presence of Milind. By that time, the other vehicle resumed its journey and Jamshed Mulla, the deceased, was presumed to have travelled in that lorry. A little later, MH-11-M 5097 also resumed its journey with Ananda Rao in the driving seat and Balikhan and Milind accompanying, in the cabin. They were under the impression that Jamshed Mulla was travelling in the other lorry. Milind also speaks of seeing a person lying on the road as they proceeded further, who it was presumed was a drunkard. Both the vehicles met a little later near a Dhaba, when Sasikanth, the driver and Thanaji, the cleaner of the offending vehicle, informed others that Jamshed Mulla was not to be seen and that after boarding the offending vehicle, he had proceeded to the carriage portion of the lorry to take rest, through the left cabin door. Presumably his attempt failed and he fell down from the moving vehicle, the left rear tyre of which ran over him. This was later revealed on their turning back in search of Jamshed Mulla and substantiated from the blood marks found on the left rear tyre of the offending vehicle.

4. The contention of the Insurance Company is that in the circumstances revealed from the FI Statement and the deposition of PW3 it is very clear that Jamshed Mulla was a gratuitous passenger in the other vehicle. It is also submitted that even if a second driver is mandatorily required to be posted in a National Permit vehicle for the purpose of indemnification of liability by the insurer, the additional employee travelling in the vehicle would have to be covered by payment of additional premium. Section 147 according to the Insurance Company only provides coverage to one driver and one employee carried in a goods vehicle. Relying on the decision in [2013(2) SCC 41], Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Saju P.Paul & Anr , it was argued that the deceased, even if a spare driver, employed in the offending vehicle, is only a gratuitous passenger.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the decision in Saju P.Paul is before the amendment to Section 147 in the year 1994. It is also argued that earlier, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had in New India Assurance Company vs Satpal Singh (2000(1) SCC 237) held that Section 147 as then available in the 1988 Act does not warrant an insurance policy covering 3rd party risk to exclude gratuitous passengers in a vehicle. It is argued that New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Asha Rani , ( 200 3 ) 2 SCC 223 did not overrule Satpal Singh in its entirety. In such circumstances the earlier decision holds the field in so far as gratuitous passengers are concerned, is the argument. This is without prejudice to the contention that the 2nd driver is also an employee of the insured covered under the Proviso to Section 147. Sanjeev Kumar Samrat v. National Insurance Company Ltd., (2014) 14 SCC 243 is relied on to contend that the Insurance Company is obliged to offer coverage to all the employees; employed or engaged by the insured, as per the policy. A second driver also would hence be covered by the policy is the contention. 2015 SCC Online Ker 19117, Paily vs. Babu, a Division Bench decision of this Court is relied on to contend that even a person carried in the vehicle in pursuance of a contract of employment is covered by a 'Act only policy'.

6. Having gone through the decisions, this Court finds that Asha Rani reversed Satpal Singh in its entirety and the reversal was of the finding that a gratuitous passenger would be entitled to coverage under Section 147(1) of the Act. In Saju P.Paul's case, which considered both the aforesaid decisions the specific facts were that an employee of the insured himself was travelling as a spare-driver in yet another vehicle of the same employer, when the accident occurred. The accident resulted in the spare-driver suffering serious injuries. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the injured was only a gratuitous passenger. It was held in para 17 that: “...The insured (owner of the vehicle) got insurance cover in respect of the subject goods vehicle for driver and cleaner only and not for any other employee. There is no insurance cover for the spare driver in the policy. As a matter of law, the claimant did not cease to be a gratuitous passenger though he claimed that he was a spare driver. The insured had paid premium for one driver and one cleaner and, therefore, second driver or for that purpose “spare driver” was not covered under the policy."

7. The amendment of 1994 which is relied on by the learned counsel for the claimants does not at all have any relevance in so far as a gratuitous passenger. In Section 147(1)(b)(i), the words "injury to any person" specifying the person or classes of persons covered, was substituted with "injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle". Hence only the owner of the goods and such owner's authorized representative carried in the vehicle were additionally covered as per the amendment. A gratuitous passenger who was held to be excluded by Asha Rani's case cannot be included by virtue of the amendment relied on.

8. We need to dwell briefly upon the background to clear the air with respect to the specific contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent. In Satpal Singh the question dealt with was whether the third party risk covered by a limited policy under the 1988 Act covers death or bodily injury even of a gratuitous passenger as distinguished from the 1939 Act. Noticing the provision under Section 147 of the 1988 Act to be substantially different from Section 95 of the 1939 Act, it was held that an insurance policy covering third party risk under the 1988 Act does not exclude gratuitous passenger in a vehicle whatever be the type or class of the vehicle. Therein a ten year old girl met with her death in a truck accident in which vehicle she was a gratuitous passenger. Later the issue again arose for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on three aspects; the liability under the 1939 Act, that under the 1988 Act, before and after the 1994 amendment. Satpal Singh dealt with the aspect of the liability as per the 1988 Act before its amendment in 1994. A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Asha Rani,[(2001) 6 SCC 724] doubted the position as declared in Satpal Singh and referred it for consideration before a larger Bench. On the two other aspects the very same Bench authoritatively declared the position in Ramesh Kumar v. National Insurance Company Limited [(2001) 6 SCC 713]. The common issue was whether the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation on account of death or injury of gratuitous passenger including the owner of the goods or his representative travelling in a goods vehicle. The question as to whether Section 95 of the 1939 Act provided cover to these categories was found to have been answered in Mallawwa v Oriental Insurance Company Limited [(1999) 1 SCC 403]. With respect to the 1939 Act, it was held that the Insurance Company is not liable for any damages or injury caused to gratuitous passengers including owner of the goods or its representative who travelled in a goods vehicle. The position with respect to the 1988 Act, prior to its amendment in 1994 was not considered since the issue of coverage of gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle before amendment, was referred to a larger Bench. On the third category of cases, regarding the liability of the Insurance Company under the 1988 Act, after its 1994 amendment it was noticed that there was no case before them in which there was a claim raised by a gratuitous passenger. Satpal Singh was found to be only applicable to gratuitous passengers. With respect to the owner of the goods and his authorised representative carried in the vehicle; it was held, after the 1994 amendment the Insurance Company is liable to cover any injury caused to them, under Section 147.

9. As we noticed earlier, the amendment in 1994 does not in any manner affect the decision in Satpal Singh which was with respect to the pre-amended provision. Even after amendment, as per Satpal Singh the injury caused to a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle would be covered under Section 147. This is the specific issue which was considered by the larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court pursuant to the reference, in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Asha Rani, ( 200 3 ) 2 SCC 223 which reversed Satpal Singh. It was held by the larger Bench that the amendment of 1994 itself would lead to the irresistible conclusion that prior to that even if the widest interpretation is given to the expression “to any person” as found in 146(1)(b) (1), it would not cover the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle. Hence there is no question of a gratuitous passenger being covered under the policy issued prior to the amendment of 1994. After the amendment of 1994 the law with respect to the coverage under the insurance policy remains the same insofar as the third party risk not covering the injury or damage caused to gratuitous passengers. However, the owner of the goods and his representative would be covered after the amendment brought in to Section 147 in 1994. This does not change the position insofar as the gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle not being covered even after the amendment in 1994. Hence a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle or goods carriage as per the 1939 Act and the 1988 Act, before and the after the amendment of 1994 are not covered under a policy issued under Section 147. A spare driver also has only the status of a gratuitous passenger and would not be covered by an 'Act only policy'.

10. Sanjeev Kumar Samrat was a case in which the question arose as to whether the insurer is obliged to indemnify the owner of a goods vehicle, when the employees engaged by the hirer of the vehicle(owner of the goods) travelled in the vehicle. Therein the owner of the goods and two employees travelled in the hired vehicle, which met with an accident in which all of them succumbed to the injuries caused. The owner of the goods was held to be covered, but not his employees. The policy therein, in addition to the statutory cover, covered six employees under the purview of the Workmens Compensation Act. The said employees were held to be those of the owner of the vehicle and not of the owner of the goods. The Court noticed Section 147 to find the legislative intend, as far as a goods vehicle is concerned, to be to cover injury to any person (a third party as held in Asha Rani) including the owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle as per sub-section(1)(b), the driver of the vehicle as per proviso (i)(a) and an employee of the owner of the vehicle who is carried in the vehicle as per proviso (i)(c). Hence every employee of the owner of the goods would not be covered under the policy; was the finding. The dictum has no application to the instant case.

11. In Paily the injured deceased was a loading and unloading worker, who was travelling with the timber owned by the forest department in a vehicle hired by the said department. The worker was thrown out of the vehicle and later succumbed to injuries. It was in such circumstances that the Division Bench found that he is covered by the policy being an authorized representative of the owner of the goods. Neither of these decisions help the claimants in advancing their case with respect to indemnification of the owner of the vehicle, by the insurance company.

12. Having stated the law with respect to an additional employee carried in the goods vehicle as argued by the learned counsel for the claimant, we have to observe that the same has no relevance to the facts of the instant case. The deceased was not the employee of the owner of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident. Admittedly, two lorries were proceeding to Maharashtra with goods loaded from the very same premises. Both the vehicles as noticed before had two drivers employed therein along with one cleaner. The second driver of each of the said vehicles was the spare driver engaged by the owner of the vehicle to satisfy the essential requirement for a National Permit. The two vehicles as noticed had registration Nos.MH-11-M-5097 and MH-11-F-4369. The vehicle involved in the accident was one having number MH-11-F-4369, whose owner was impleaded as the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent's deposition as available from the records indicates that the other vehicle was owned by yet another person and the deceased was the first driver in that vehicle. This is in consonance with the FI Statement as spoken of by Bhanudas, the cleaner of the vehicle, with registration No. MH-11-M-5097. Though both vehicles were hired by the same person to transport Dalda from Maharashtra to Kerala and timber from Kerala back to Maharashtra, the registered owners of the two vehicles were different persons. The deceased was not the employee of the 2nd respondent, who was the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. In that context no question arises as to whether a second driver is covered under the proviso to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act; which in any event has to be answered in the negative going by the precedents above referred. It has to be held that the Insurance Company has no liability to indemnify the owner of the goods vehicle, with respect to the compensation awarded for the loss of life of the deceased, who was not an employee of the owner of that vehicle and has been proved to be a gratuitous passenger in the goods carriage involved in the accident. Even a spare driver as found in Saju P. Paul would not be covered by an 'Act only policy'. The insurance company has to be absolved from the liability to indemnify the owner of the vehicle, as per the policy. The award is set aside to that limited extent.

13. Now the question arises as to whether the insurance company has to discharge the liability and then be reserved the right of recovery from the owner of the offending vehicle. The claim petition before the Tribunal is one filed under section 163A and hence there is no question of negligence being proved, though this Court has referred to the vehicle involved in the accident as the offending vehicle; which is only for the purpose of distinguishing the two vehicles. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saju P. Paul has elaborately dealt with the directions issued to the insurer to satisfy the award amounts, with rights reserved for recovery, on the strength of precedents. The learned Judges also noticed National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvathneni (2009) 8 SCC 785 wherein the question as to the justification of directing insurance companies to satisfy the award amounts even when it does not have any liability; was referred to a larger Bench; but all the same issued such direction. A later decision Manuara Khatun vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh (2017) 4 SCC 796 dealing with this specific question held so:

17. The facts of the case at hand are somewhat identical to the facts of the case mentioned supra because here also we find that the deceased were found travelling as “gratuitous passengers” in the offending vehicle and it was for this reason, the insurance companies were exonerated. In Saju P. Paul case also having held that the victim was “gratuitous passenger”, this Court issued directions against the insurer of the offending vehicle to first satisfy the awarded sum and then to recover the same from the insured in the same proceedings.

14. The learned Judges rejected the contentions advanced on the strength of the reference made to a larger Bench in para 19:

19. We find no merit in any of the submissions. Firstly, as mentioned above, we find marked similarity in the facts of this case and the one involved in Saju P. Paul case. Secondly, merely because the compensation has not yet been paid to the claimants though the case is quite old (16 years) like the one in Saju P. Paul case it cannot be a ground to deny the claimants the relief claimed in these appeals. Thirdly, this Court has already considered and rejected the argument regarding not granting of the relief of the nature claimed herein due to pendency of the reference to a larger Be

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

nch as would be clear from para 26 of the judgment in Saju P. Paul case. That apart, the learned counsel for the appellants stated at the Bar that the reference made to the larger Bench has since been disposed of by keeping the issue undecided. It is for this reason also, the argument does not survive any more. 15. The issue in the two cases cited above was the liability of the insurance companies as against injury/death caused to gratuitous passengers; which was held in the negative in so far as an 'Act only policy'. Despite that the insurer was directed to satisfy the award and recover it from the owner. In that circumstance we issue similar directions to the insurance Company to satisfy the award amounts and pay it to the claimants and reserve the right of the Insurance Company to recover the amounts paid from the owner of the vehicle, the second respondent herein who has been served with notice in this appeal, but remained ex-parte. The Insurance Company would be enabled to approach the Tribunal which decided the issue or seek transfer of the matter to the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the residence/ assets of the 2nd respondent owner of the vehicle. Either way the Tribunals shall be empowered to effect recovery under the Revenue Recovery Act of that State where the 2nd respondent has assets/residence. 16. Considering the fact that 14 years have now elapsed from the date of the accident, there is no requirement to keep any amounts in fixed deposit as directed by the Tribunal. We also notice that both the minor children would have attained majority as of now. The claimants shall produce a copy of a cancelled cheque of the Bank account in a Nationalized Bank in any one of their names, with authorization from others or in their joint/separate names and with copy of AADHAAR or acceptable identification, before the Tribunal within one month, with copy to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company shall credit the amounts through NEFT/RTGS mode to the said account/accounts, within three months thereafter failing which, the claimants can approach the Tribunal. Appeal allowed with the above reservation and directions. No order on costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

21-10-2020 UETC India Ltd., New Delhi Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-10-2020 Ajay Gupta Versus Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-10-2020 Senior Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus Rajesh Kumar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-10-2020 The Regional Manager National Insurance Company Limited, Bengaluru Versus Sathi @ K. Sathya & Others High Court of Karnataka
09-10-2020 OOO Insurance Company Chubb Versus Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS United Kingdom Supreme Court
08-10-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Chief Manager Versus Seetakanta Patnaik National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-10-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rasipuram & Others Versus Arukkani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-10-2020 Jewellery World, Orissa Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Orissa National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-10-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited, Udumalpet Versus N. Thangavel, & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-10-2020 Small Industries Development Bank of India, Chennai & Others Versus Creation Investments Equitas Holdings LLC A wholly owned subsidiary of Creation Investments Social Ventures Fund II LP, United States of America & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-10-2020 Tarun Kanti Chowdhury & Others Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-10-2020 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kumbakonam, Represented by its Branch manager, Kumbakonam Versus Nirmala & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-10-2020 The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vellore Versus M. Suresh & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-09-2020 Mangala & Others Versus National Insurance Company Limited, (Ori. Respondent) Through its Manager In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
29-09-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Raipur Versus Brahmanand Javvadi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-09-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Yuraj Yadu Sawant & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
29-09-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Yuraj Yadu Sawant & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
28-09-2020 M/s. Shankar Jewels & Others Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-09-2020 M/s. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus T. Paul Raj National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-09-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Panaji, Goa, Now Represented by its Regional Manager, Bengaluru Versus Imran Khan & Others High Court of Karnataka
28-09-2020 The Managing Director, KSRTC, Central Offices, Represented by its Divisional Controller, Mangaluru Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another High Court of Karnataka
25-09-2020 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Madurai Versus Tamilarasan & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-09-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kumbakonam Versus Natarajan & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2020 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan Versus Nirmala Devi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-09-2020 Charu Sharma & Others Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., Maharshtra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-09-2020 Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Namakkal Versus Shanmugam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-09-2020 Elite International Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-09-2020 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through- Its Divisional Manager, Chhattisgarh Versus Vivek Giri & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
22-09-2020 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through- Its Divisional Manager, Chhattisgarh Versus Vivek Giri & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
22-09-2020 Bhilai Engineering Corporation Ltd., Through Madhavdas K., Authorised Signatory Bec Nandinin Road Industrial Area, Chhattisgarh Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Senior Divisional Manager, Chhattisgarh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-09-2020 Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chitradurga & Others Versus D. Mallappa & Another High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus M/s. Guptasons Jewellers & Gems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-09-2020 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Coimbatore & Another Versus N. Dhanalakshmi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2020 Heinz India Private Limited Versus National Insurance Company Limited & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-09-2020 Manager [Legal], Reliance General Insurance Company, Chennai Versus Jeya & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
15-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through The Regional Manager, New Delhi Versus Dinesh Vijay National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-09-2020 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bengaluru Versus Vishwanatha & Another High Court of Karnataka
14-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Represented by its Branch Manager, Vellore Versus Krishnaveni & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-09-2020 The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd, Puducherry Versus Ulagaratchagan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Anna Salai, Versus Selvi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rajasthan Versus M/s. Radhika Oil Industries, Rajasthan National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-09-2020 Pyar Singh Versus Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-09-2020 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chidambaram Versus Emili & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through its Divisional Manager, Osmanpura, Aurangabad Versus Chandrakala & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
04-09-2020 Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Manager, Maharashtra Versus Banshiram Bishnoi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-09-2020 National Insurance Company Limited, Raipur Versus Khorin Bai Sori & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-09-2020 National Insurance Company Limited, Raipur Versus Khorin Bai Sori & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus Joidha Bai Patel & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-09-2020 M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd., Namakkal. Versus Allimuthu @ Sengodan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 National Insurance Company Limited Versus Ashwani Kumari & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
01-09-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By its Divisional Manager, Arani Versus Raja & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2020 Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Sundaram Towers, Chennai Versus Manickam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2020 Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Sundaram Towers, Chennai Versus Manickam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-08-2020 Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd., E.B.RIICO Industrial Area, Rajasthan Versus Chinnaraj & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-08-2020 Master Vinay Bharadwaj, Rep. by his Father & Natural Guardian D.R. Shivakumar Versus M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
26-08-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Nand Kishore Sharma & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
25-08-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus Maragatham & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-08-2020 Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Chhattisgarh Versus Indra Bai & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
24-08-2020 United Conveyor Corporation (India) Private Limited Versus Pravash Kumar Mukherjee High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
24-08-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Singhla Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-08-2020 Sanjay Khandelwal Versus Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-08-2020 M/s. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus Parvathi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-08-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Narinder Kour & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
19-08-2020 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Constituent Attorney, Rajasthan Versus Baldev Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-08-2020 Vijay Cotton & Fibre Co., Maharashtra Versus New India Insurance Company Ltd., Maharashtra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-08-2020 Premchand Jute & Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus The Employees State Insurance Corporation & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-08-2020 M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Tirupur Versus S. Veeramani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-08-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Astha Cement Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-08-2020 Branch Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd.), Madhya Pradesh & Another Versus Lekhram Avadhiya National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-08-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited, District Raipur & Another Versus Rahi Solanki & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
07-08-2020 The Divisional Manager, M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vellore Versus Paneerselvam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2020 National Insurance Company Ltd., Third Floor, No.751, Anna Salai, Chennai Versus Vijaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-08-2020 M/s. Perfectpac Ltd., Haryana Versus United India Insurance Company Limited (Through Its Divisional Manager/Branch Manager/ Authrised Signatory) & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-08-2020 The Branch Manager, M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Kodungallur Versus M.M. Jose Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
06-08-2020 Adith Suresh (minor), ‘Anugraha', Thavakkara West, Kannur Versus The Managing Director, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company ltd., Mumbai & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
06-08-2020 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan Versus Kailash Chand Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-08-2020 Kaizen Organics Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-08-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Coimbatore Versus Murugammal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-08-2020 Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Now Known As Aditiya Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd.), Maharashtra & Another Versus Narendra Pundlik Ramteke National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-08-2020 The National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office II, Salem Versus. Raja & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Rajesh Kumar Dy. Manager, New Delhi Versus Biking Food Products (P) Ltd., Telangana National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-07-2020 United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Chennai & Another Versus Suseela Jothi Mary Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2020 United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Chennai & Another Versus Suseela Jothi Mary Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-07-2020 M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep.by its Branch Manager, Cantonment Versus Kaanikkaimery & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-07-2020 Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Mampi Dhar (Gosh) & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-07-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Vikash Kumar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-07-2020 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Ashok Laxman Mane & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-07-2020 Gurbax Singh Banga Versus Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Pvt. Ltd., Punjab & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-07-2020 National Insurance Company Limited Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney Manager, New Delhi Versus M/s. D.D Spinners Pvt. Ltd., Panipat National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-07-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Authorized signatory, Pravin Prabhakar Prabhu Versus Kameshwari Rajendra Sabnis & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
23-07-2020 The Divisional Manager, M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Vellore Versus M. Amavasai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2020 Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Sujoy Chatterjee National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-07-2020 Ex-Subedar Vinod Kumar Sharma Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-07-2020 SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., West Bengal Versus Kajari Gayen & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-07-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus Mahesh Gundappa Gouder In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
20-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through National Legal Vertical, New Delhi Versus M/s. Krishna Spico Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2020 The National Insurance Company Ltd., Cuddalorre Versus B. Muthusamy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-07-2020 Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Chhattisgarh Versus Ansat Siya & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
17-07-2020 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Delhi International Airport Ltd. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
16-07-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Chandan Tulsidas Gauthankar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa