CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA versus JAGBIR SINGH

Citation: [2015] 3 S.C.R. 930 · Decided: 16-04-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 930 
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 
v. 
JAGBIR SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No. 3645 of 2015) 
APRIL 16, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
C 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - s.14(1)(d) - Motor 
accident - Compensation - Liability - Vehicle purchased 
· with loan sanctioned by the Bank to the owner of the 
vehicle - Initially vehicle insured, however; on the date of 
accident vehicle not insured with any of the insurance 
0 
company - Said vehicle involved in the accident - Award 
of compensation against the owner of the vehicle - Liability 
of the financer-creditor bank - Held: Liability of the creditor 
bank, to get the vehicle insured is only till the vehicle comes 
out on the road - Creditor bank is not liable to get the 
E insurance policy renewed on behalf of the owner of the 
vehicle from time to time - Thus, the order passed by the 
authorities under the1986 Act that the creditor bank is liable 
to pay compensation set aside - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 
- s. 146. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The National Commission did not 
consider properly the well explained delay in filing the 
revision before it. Therefore, the impugned order 
G dismissing the revision petition, in the instant case, 
cannot be sustained. [Para 6] [933-G-H; 934-B] 
1.2 The liability of the creditor bank, to get the 
vehicle insured is only till the vehicle comes out on the 
H 
930 
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA v. JAGBIR SINGH 
931 
road. The creditor bank is not liable to get the A 
insurance policy renewed on behalf of the owner of the 
vehicle from time to time. The impugned order passed 
by the authorities under Consumer Protection Act, 
1986, that the creditor bank ·is liable to pay 
compensation is set aside. [Paras 8- 9] [935-C-D; 937-
B 
D-E] 
HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Kumari Reshma and others AIR 
2015 SC 290 - relied to. 
Pradeep Kumar Jain v. Citi Bank and another (1999) C 
6 sec 361 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
(1999) 6 sec 361 
AIR 2015 SC 290 
referred to. 
relied to. 
Para 7 
Para 8, 9 
CIVIL: APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
3645 of 2015. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.11.2013 of the 
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at 
New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 3648 of 2013. 
0. P. Gaggar for the Appellant. 
N. Ganpathy for the Respondent. 
The judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
E 
F 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is directed G 
against order dated 19.11.2013, passed by National 
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 
"NCDRC"), New Delhi, in Revision Petition No. 3648 of 
2013 whereby the revision filed by the present appellant 
is dismissed. 
H 
932 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and 
perused the papers on record. 
3. Brief facts of the case, giving rise to this appeal, are 
that respondent Jagbir Singh purchased a tractor bearing 
B registration No. HR-14B-3913, after getting loan sanctioned 
from the appellant-Bank. In terms of conditions of loan the 
respondent was making deposits of the loan instalments 
of loan to the Bank. The vehicle was initially insured as 
required under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but no premium 
C of insurance was paid by the respondent for the period after 
25.5.2005. On 24.9.2007 at about 11.50 a.m., an accident 
occurred between the above vehicle and motorcycle 
bearing registration No. DL-3S-AY-0421, in which Pankaj 
son of Babu Ram Garg, died due to rash and negligent 
D driving on the part of Diwan Singh, driver of the tractor 
owned by respondent Jagbir Singh. The parents of the 
deceased filed claim petition No. 208/11/2007 before Motor 
Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, 
which was allowed by said Tribunal, vide its order dated 
E 17 .11.2012 awarding compensation to the tune of 
Rs.4,01,460/- with 7.5% interest per annum, against driver 
and owner of the vehicle. It has not been disputed between 
the parties that on the date of accident the vehicle No. HR-
F 14B-3913 was not insured with any of the insurance 
companies, as required under Section 146 of the Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1988. 
4. The respondent filed complaint (No. 157 of 208) 
before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, 
G Jhajjar, praying that the Central Bank of India (appellant), 
i.e., the creditor bank should be made liable to pay the 
compensation, awarded against him by the Tribunal. The 
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, vide its order 
H dated 11.1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.