In an insurance dispute arising from a 1986 accident, the High Court examined whether the appellant could prove its liability was limited. Witness testimony confirmed payment of an additional premium for unlimited risk, leading the court to find no error in the lower view and dismissing the appeal.
The appeal is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Civil No. 7/2004
N.I.C.Ltd., Udaipur
----Appellant
Versus
Smt.Shanta Devi And Ors.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Johari. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dilip Kawadia. Mr. G.S. Rathore.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
10/09/2018
[SAC-7/2004]
(2 of 2)
a position to say which officer signed the policy. But, he admitted that owner had paid ₹50 as additional premium and that additional premium covered unlimited risk.
(Dr. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ
Ashutosh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant insurance company failed to prove that its liability under the policy was limited given the payment of additional premium for unlimited risk.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jugal KishoreExplained¶18
1988 ACJ 270 National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jugal Kishore
N.I.C.Ltd., Udaipur
Smt.Shanta Devi And Ors.
Pradeep Nandrajog
Pushpendra Singh Bhati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
