NRI Legal Services Fundamentals Explained
Whether such a burden had been discharged, would depend upon the facts breach on the part of the insured concerning a policy condition, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said breach of condition is so fundamental as to be found to have contributed to Advocates; website link, the cause of the accident. Mere absence of or production of fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third party.
(see para 295 of the Punjab Settlement Manual, pp. The insurance company is, thus, required to establish the said breach by cogent evident. The breach of a policy condition has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. nIt is not disputed that under s. Failing to resolve the disputes between ship or pay and reasonable endeavour basis, Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (in short, "the Board") on 21.
For this purpose, the High Court appointed a respected advocate of that Advocates (website link) Court as a one-man committee to visit the work site and submit a report with regard to the extent of work completed or at the stage of completion. In claims by a third party, there cannot be much doubt that once the liability of the owner is found, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner, subject of course, to any defence that may be available to it under Section 149(2) of the Act.
Further, as has been held in the case of B. In appendix VIII of the Settlement Manual, Section E, are contained instructions with regard to the Wajib-ul-arz and instruction No. The proposition of law is no longer res- integra that the person who alleges breach must prove the same. (emphasis laid by this Court) It becomes very clear from a perusal of the above mentioned case law of this Court that the insurance company, Advocates - like it, in order to avoid liability must not only establish the defence claimed in the proceeding concerned, but also establish breach on the part of the owner/insured of the vehicle for which the burden of proof would rest with the insurance company.
On examining the facts, it is found that, that was a case which related to a claim by a third party. These facts have not been taken into consideration by either the State Commission or National Commission while exercising their jurisdiction and setting aside the order of the District Forum. Nagaraju (supra) that for the insurer to avoid his liability, the breach of the policy must be so fundamental in nature that it brings the contract to an end. There Lordships discussed the position and held ultimately that a defence under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Act was available to an insurer when a claim is filed either under Section 163-A or under Section 166 of the Act.
The Wajib-ul-arz or village administration paper is a record of existing customs regarding rights and liabilities in the estate; it is not to be used for the creation of new rights or liabilities. IV of the Act and the rules thereunder, shall be presumed to be true (vide s. However, the High Court, on the submission of learned counsel for BOC decided to verify whether the installation and supply of the complete system as per the notice of tender was near completion as stated by Sciemed in its affidavit filed in this Court.
(emphasis laid by this Court) The judgment in the case of Swaran Singh (supra) has been followed subsequently in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 66 of 2010 was registered for the offences referred to supra under the provisions of the IPC. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the accident was infact caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, against whom a criminal case Advocates (website link) vide FIR no.
31 of the Punjab Land- Revenue Act, 1887, Wajib-ul-arz is a part of the record-of- rights, and entries made therein in accordance with Advocates - website link - law and the provisions of Ch. In the instant case, the respondent-Company has not produced any evidence on record to prove that the accident occurred on account of the overloading of passengers in the goods carrying vehicle. Meena Variyal[5], wherein this Court held as under:- We shall now examine the decision in Swaran Singh on which practically the whole of the arguments on behalf of the claimants were rested.
The insurance company to avoid liability, must not only establish the available defence raised in the proceeding concerned but must also establish breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle for which the burden of proof would rest with the insurance company. In case where the liability is satisfied by the insurance company in the first instance, it may have recourse to the owner in respect of a claim available in that behalf, it may have recourse to the owner in respect of a claim available that behalf.
Swaran Singh was a case where the insurance company raised a defence that the owner had permitted the vehicle to be driven by a driver who really had no licence and the driving licence produced by him was a fake one. In the event the insurance company fails to prove that there has been breach of conditions of policy on the part of the insured, the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability.
