AMRIT PAUL SINGH & ANR. versus TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 6 S.C.R. 838 · Decided: 17-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
838
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
AMRIT PAUL SINGH & ANR.
v.
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.2253 of 2018)
MAY 17, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI AND A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.166 – Fatal accident – Truck of
appellant No.2 hit the motorcycle of the victim as a result of which
victim sustained multiple injuries and died – Claim for compensation
before the MACT – Tribunal held that the insurer was not liable,
however, directed the amount of compensation with interest to be
paid by the insurer with direction to recover the same from the owner
and driver of the vehicle – Held: It is clear from the materials brought
on record that the vehicle at the time of accident did not have a
permit – Use of a vehicle in a place without a permit is a fundamental
statutory infraction – Nothing was brought on record by the insured
to prove that he had permit of the vehicle – In such a situation, the
onus cannot be cast on the insurer – Therefore, the tribunal as well
as the High Court had rightly directed the insurer to pay the
compensation amount to the claimants with interest with stipulation
that the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner
and the driver – Doctrines/Principles – Pay and recover principle.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The insurer had taken the plea that the vehicle in
question had no permit. The existence of a permit of any nature
is a matter of documentary evidence. Nothing has been brought
on record by the insured to prove that he had a permit of the
vehicle. In such a situation, the onus cannot be cast on the insurer.
Therefore, the tribunal as well as the High Court had directed
the insurer to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with
interest with the stipulation that the insurer shall be entitled to
recover the same from the owner and the driver. The said
directions are in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran
Singh and other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle.
[Para 23] [851-F-H]
   [2018] 6 S.C.R. 838
838
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
839
National Insurance Co. Ltd  v. Swaran Singh and Others
(2004) 3 SCC 297 : [2004]  1  SCR 180 – relied on.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and
Others (2004) 8 SCC 517 : [2004] 4  Suppl. SCR
587 ; Ashok Kumar Khemaka v. Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. and Others 2014 (3) RCR (Civil) 1018 ;
National Insurance Company Limited v. Kamlesh Kaur
and Others 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 634 ; Moti Ram v.
ICICI Lombard and Others 2015 ACJ 1793 ; United
India Insurance Co. Limited v. Lehru (2003) 3 SCC
338 : [2003] 2  SCR  495 ; Lakhmi Chand v. Reliance
General Insurance (2016) 3 SCC 100 ; Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal and Others (2007)
5 SCC 428 : [2007] 4  SCR 641 ; HDFC Bank Limited
v. Reshma and Others (2015) 3 SCC 679 ; Purnya Kala
Devi v. State of Assam and Others (2014) 14 SCC 142
– referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2004] 4 Suppl. SCR 587           referred to
Para 3
2014 (3) RCR (Civil) 101          referred to
Para 4
2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 634
    referred to
Para 4
2015 ACJ 1793
    referred to
Para 4
[2004] 1 SCR 180
    relied on
Para 12
[2003] 2 SCR 495
    referred to
Para 15
(2016) 3 SCC 100
    referred to
Para 18
[2007] 4 SCR 641
    referred to
Para 18
(2015) 3 SCC 679
    referred to
Para 19
(2014) 14 SCC 142
    referred to
Para 19
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2253
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.08.2016 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No.1702/2016.
AMRIT PAUL SINGH & ANR. v. TATA AIG GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
840
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
Sudhir Walia, Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, Abhishek Atrey, Advs. for
the Appellants.
Amit Kumar Singh, Mrs. K. Enatoli Sema, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DIPAK MISRA, CJI 1. The legal representatives of the
deceased, Jagir Singh, the husband of the second respondent, preferred
a claim petition being MACT Case No. 70 of 2013 under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) before the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathankot (for short, ‘the tribunal’) claiming
compensation to the tune of Rs. 36,00,000/-. The claim petition was filed
on the basis that on 19.02.2013, Jagir Singh was travelling to Pathankot
on his motor cycle and at that juncture, the offending truck bearing
temporary registration No. PB-06-6894 belonging to the appellant No. 2

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.