<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2004 (1) TMI 676 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171713</link>
    <description>The amended Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 extends compulsory insurance for a goods vehicle only to third-party risk and to the owner of the goods or authorised representative carried in the vehicle, not to gratuitous passengers travelling without premium coverage. The mischief rule was applied to read the 1994 amendment as a limited enlargement of liability, not as a conversion of goods carriage cover into passenger-risk cover. Where the award had already been decided on the then-prevailing legal position, the insurer was required to satisfy the award first, but was permitted to recover the amount from the vehicle owner in execution proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2015 12:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=391694" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 676 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171713</link>
      <description>The amended Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 extends compulsory insurance for a goods vehicle only to third-party risk and to the owner of the goods or authorised representative carried in the vehicle, not to gratuitous passengers travelling without premium coverage. The mischief rule was applied to read the 1994 amendment as a limited enlargement of liability, not as a conversion of goods carriage cover into passenger-risk cover. Where the award had already been decided on the then-prevailing legal position, the insurer was required to satisfy the award first, but was permitted to recover the amount from the vehicle owner in execution proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171713</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>