VIMLABAI D VASHISHTHA Vs. GENERAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY LTD
LAWS(BOM)-1954-1-3
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on January 25,1954

VIMLABAI D.VASHISHTHA Appellant
VERSUS
GENERAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY LTD. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

WINDSOR V. CHALCRAFT [REFERRED TO]
SARUPSINGH MANGAT SINGH VS. NILKANT BHASKAR SURATKAR [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

MOTOR AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. HOTA RAM [LAWS(P&H)-1960-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
BRITISH INDIA GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. ITBAR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1959-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
JUPITER INSURANCE CO VS. MOHAMMAD MALIK [LAWS(RAJ)-1968-10-12] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is a notice of motion which raises a question of law of great practical importance to insurance companies who insure third party risks in respect of motor vehicles.
(2.)Under Section 96, Motor Vehicles Act, Sub-section (1) casts a duty upon such insurers to satisfy judgments passed against the insured in respect of third party risk. Sub-section (2) of that section provides, however, that such liability shall not attach to the insurer unless before or after the commencement of the proceedings in which a judgment is obtained a notice has been given to the insurer through the Court of the bringing of the proceedings, This Sub-section further provides that an insurer on whom notice has been served shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action only on any of the grounds therein enumerated.
(3.)Now, in the present case the suit is filed by the mother of a young lady, by the name of Prabha who .received serious injuries by reason of a motor accident and ultimately died, to recover a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 from defendant No. 1 who was the owner of the said motor car. On 23-11-1953, the requisite notice under Section 913(2) was served upon the insurance company, as a result of which if a decree is obtained in this suit by the plaintiff the insurance company will have to satisty the decree. It is also common ground that none of the grounds enumerated in Section 96(2) exist which would entitle the insurance company to be made a party to the suit and to defend the suit. Under these circumstances the insurance company has made this application tor an order that they should be allowed to defend the suit in the name of defendant No, 1 and to do all necessary acts for the purpose of such defence, or in the alternative that they should be added as party defendants.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.