UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAKESH KUMAR ARORA & ORS

Citation: [2008] 13 S.C.R. 982

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.B. SINHA, CYRIAC JOSEPH

Case summary

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAKESH KUMAR ARORA & ORS.pdf

Judgment text

[2008] 13 S. C. R. 982 ' • UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAKESH KUMAR ARORA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5876 of 2008) SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 [S. B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH,JJ] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: ss. 3, 4, 5 and 10 - Fatal accident - Claim petition - Driver of offending vehicle aged about 15 years - Tribunal holding Insurer not liable - High Court holding that there was no breach of contract on the part of insured and thus insurer was liable - HELD: The vehicle in question was being driven by a person aged 15 years, who did not have any valid driving licence on date of accident - s. 5 imposes a statutory responsibility upon the owner of a motor vehicle not to cause or permit any person who does not satisfy the provisions of s. 3 or s. 4 to drive the vehicle - High Court did not advert to itself the provisions of ss.

3 and 4 of the Act and thus misdirected itself in law - The judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the Tribunal restored - However, as no stay was granted by the High Court and the Insurer deposited the entire amount, which has since been withdrawn by the claimant, the Insurer shall be entitled to recover the amount from owner of the vehicle. [para 15-16, 18 and 21] National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kaushalaya Devi & Ors. 2008(8) SCR 500=2008(8) SCALE 500 - relied on. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Prithvi Raj 2008(1) SCR 1180=2008(1) SCALE 727 - referred to. V Mepherson and another vs. Shiv Charan Singh and others 1998 ACJ 601; and Skandia Insurance Company Limited vs. Koki/aben Chandravadan and others 1987 ACJ 411 - cited. ) Case Law Reference ~ • 2008(8) SCR 500 relied on para 12 2008(1)'SCR 1180 referred to para 19 \ I CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5876 ... ~ of 2008 · · · · f ' ,From the final Judgment and Order dated 20. 5.

2004 of ~ I the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LP. A No. 1880 of 2000 K. L. Nandram and Debasis Misra for the Appellant. i ' . Sachin Jain, Dr. Kailash Chand, Suraj Rahitesh and Romeshwar Prasad Goyal for the Respondents, "' The following Order of the Courtwas delivered 1. Delay condoned. 'I 2. Substitution allowed. -i 3. Application for Abatement is set aside. " 4. Leave granted. 5. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20. 5. 2004 passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High court at Chandigarh whereby and whereunder the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellant herein from th. e judgment and order dated 9. 10. 2000 passed by the learned .... . Single Judge in the said FA. No. 2627of1998 was dismisseq, i ·s. One Balwant Singh filed an application claiming a sum ~ of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) by way of compensa- : ·tion for death of his son Virender Singh in an accident which . took place on 5. 2. 1997.

The owner of the vehicle contested the ,, said claim. Appellant herein, inter alia, raised a contention be- · fore the Tribunal that the driver of the vehicle, namely, Karan ~ •· Arora was a minor on the date of the accident and was not hold- ·. ing a valid and effective driving licence and thus it was not Ii- ·able to reimburse the owner of the vehicle. > -~ ••:::. •I iJ ::.. •• I ( ' ·.. ~"The provisions relating to the necessity of having a licence to drive a vehicle is contained in Section 3,4:. and 10 of the · ·Act. As various aspects of the said provisions, vis-a-vis, · the liability of the Insurance Company to r_eimburse the , owner in respect of a claim . of a. th! rd P,ar;ty as provided in· . Section . 149 thereof have been . dealt,with in several . decisions, it is not necessaryfor us to reite'ratethe same . 011ce over again .. Suffi. C?. e. '[t, to n~~fce. • some of the precedents operating in the fi~ld. , , . ,, . In N~tional Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors.

[(2004) 3 SCC 297] this Court held: •· . . - . -.... • . t <.. -- j\ "88, Section 10 of the Act provides for forms and contents . of licences to drive. The licence has to be granted in the prescribed'form. 'Thus, a licence-to drive a light motor vehicle would entitle the holder. there to drive the vehicle falling within that class or description. : _ , ·89. 'section 3 of the Act casts an ooligation on adriver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables the Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of the said section. " It was furthermore observed: "90.

We have construed and determined the scope of sub-clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, Minor breaches of licence conditions, such as want of medical fitness certificate, requirement about age of the driver and the like not found to have been the direct cause of the accident, would be treated as minor breaches of inconsequential deviation in the matter of use of vehicles. Such minor and inconsequential deviations with regard to licensing conditions would not constitute sufficient ground to deny the benefit of coverage of insurance to the third parties. 91. On all pleas of breach of licensing conditions taken by the insurer, it would be open to the Tribunal to adjudicate the claim and decide inter se liability of insurer and insured; although where such adjudication is likely to entail undue delay in decision of the claim of the victim, the Tribunal in its discretion may relegate the insurer to seek its remedy of reimbursement from the insured in the civil court.

" The decision in Swaran Singh, however, was held to be not applicable in relation to the owner or a passenger of a vehicle which is insured. " 21. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court as noticed hereinbefore, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly and that of the learned Tribunal is restored. However, keeping in view the admitted fact that as no stay had been granted by the High Court the appellant has deposited the entire amount which has since been withdrawn by the claimant-respondent; we direct that the appellant shall be entitled to recover the amount in question from the owner of the vehicle, namely, respondent No. 1. 22. The appeal is allowed accordingly. 23. No costs. R. P. Appeal allowed.