LexM/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus DAVINDER SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,,. 'r
MIS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
A
v.
DA VINDER SINGH
OCTOBER 12, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]
y
Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
s.12-Deficiency in service-Insurance claim-Accident of c
insured motor vehicle-Driver holding fake licence-Claim for
compensation-Liability of insurer-Held: Insurer not liable to pay
compensation-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 .
.:
The complainant is the owner ofinsured vehicle which met with D
an accident Upon investigation, it was found that driver of the vehicle
~
held fake licence.
Complainant filed petition under s.12 of Consumer Protection Act,
1986, complaining deficiency in service for not paying damages wb'ich
were covered by the insurance policy. District Commission allowed the E
petition, which was upheld by State Commission and then National
Commission.
In appeal to this Court, contention raised by appellant-insurance
company was that a fake licence cannot be renewed and that too by an F
_r·
Authority which did not originally grant the same; that vehicle was
comprehensibly insured; thatthevehicle, was being driven by the driver
who did not have an effective driving licence and in that view of the
matter, the respondent was not entitled to grant of any amount by way
of compensation or otherwise.
G
~ ;-f
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The complainant is the owner of the vehicle. The Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 was enacted to meet the social obligation in regard
337
H
7
~--
338
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 11 S.C.R.
A to a third party as a result whereof taking· a cover of insurance is
'{
mandatory. In terms of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, however,
taking of an insurance policy in relation to damages which may be
suffered by the owner of the vehicle was not compulsorily insurable. It
is, thus, axiomatic that whereas an insurance company may be held to
B be liable to indemnify the owner for the purpose of meeting the object
and purport of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the same may
not be necessary in a case where an insurance company may refuse to
compensate the owner of the vehicle towards his own loss. A distinction
-"I'
must be borne in mind as regard the statutory liability of the insurer
c vis-a-vis the purport and object sought to be achieved by a beneficient
legislation before a forum constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act and
enforcement of a contract qua contract before a Consumer Forum.
[Paras 8, 9and10) .[341-E, F, G; 342-AJ
National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Swaran Singh and Ors., [2004) 3 sec
•
D 297, referred to.
2. Once the licence is found to be fake one the renewal cannot.take
;._
away the effect of fake licence. The court below committed an error in
holding the appellant liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle in
;-.
'
E regard to losses sustained by him.
(Paras 12 and 15) (343-G; 345-e)
National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, [2007) 3 sec
700; The Oriental Insurance Company Limitedv. Meena V ariyal and Ors.,
•
F (2007) 5 SCALE 269 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Brij Mohan and
~
Ors., (2007) 7 SCALE 753, relied on.
""'\.-
-~
3. Different considerations would arise in a case of this nature, as
the consumer forum established under the Consumer Protection Act,
G 1986 was concerned only with a question as to whether there was
f-
deficiency of service on the part of the appellant or not. A right on the
part of the Insurance Company not to pay the amount of insurance would
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It in certain
~ ' .....
situr-tion may be bound to pay the claim made by the third party; if the
H same is fded before a forum created under the Motor Vehicles Act. But
IPr
M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v.
339
~
DAVINDER SINGH [SINHA, J.]
·r
defence may be held to be justified before a different forum where the A
question raised is required to be considered in a different manner.
[Para 16) [345-C, D, E)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4883 of
2007.
B
From the final Order dated 9.10.2006 of the National Consumers
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P. No. 2908 of2006 .
..,...
P.R. Sikka and Rakesh K. Sharma for the Appellant.
Ajay Majithia, Rajesh Kumar and Dr. Kailash Chand for the c
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
D
2. Whether renewal of a licence granted to drive a motor vehicle
....\
which wExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.