NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus DEEPA DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 134 · Decided: 11-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
v. 
DEEPA DEVI AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 11, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND LOKESH\VAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: ss.2(30) and 166 - Requisitioning 
of vehicle by State for use in the election duty - Liability to pay 
compensation to victim of accident - Held: Is on the State and not 
c the registered owner of vehicle or its insurer - Motor Vehicles Act, 
1939 - s.2(19) - Representation of the People Act, 1951. 
The vehicle in question belonging to respondent No.3 was 
requisitioned during the Assembly Elections by SDM, and was 
D in his possession and control. The SDM was travelling in the 
said vehicle when accident took place resulting in death of one 
boy. The heirs and LRs of deceased boy filed claim petition for 
compensation. MACT held that under the terms of insurance 
policy, the appellant-insurer was not liable to reimburse the 
E owner of vehicle as regards his liability to pay compensation on 
account of the accident. On appeal, High Court held that the 
owner of the vehicle, the State Government and insurer were 
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 
F 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant-insurer contended 
that having regard to the definition of 'owner' as contained in s. 
.. 
2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and as the vehicle in 
question was not used for the purpose for which the contract of 
insurance was entered into, the judgment of the High Court was 
G not sustainable. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. For the period the vehicle requisitioned by the 
State remains under the control of the State and/or its officers, 
H 
134 
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. DEEPADEVI 
135 
AND ORS. 
the State shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation to A 
the claimants and not the registered owner of the vehicle or the 
insurer. 
[Paras 10, 18] [139-D, 144-E] 
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Durdadahya Kumar Sama! 
and Ors. 1988 (2) T.A.C. 25; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. S. B 
Ramulamma and Ors. (1989) ACJ 596; Chief Officer, Bhavnagar 
Municipality and Anr. v. Bachubhai Arjanbhai and Ors. AIR 1996 
Gujarat 51 - approved 
Rikhi Ram and Anr. v. Sukhrania (Smt) and Ors. (2003) 3 
SCC 97- Distinguished. 
C 
1.2. The Parliament while enacting the Motor Vehicles Act, 
1939 or the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 did not take into 
consideration a situation of this nature. If in a given situation, 
the statutory definitions contained in the 1988 Act cannot be D 
given effect to in letter and spirit, the same should be understood 
from the common sense point of view. No doubt, respondent 
Nos. 3 and 4 continued to be the registered owner of the vehicle 
despite the fact that the same was requisitioned by the SDM in 
exercise of its power conferred upon him under the E 
Representation of the People Act. It is not a case where the car 
was handed over to a person with consent of the owner thereof. 
The owner of the vehicle could not refuse to abide by the order 
of requisition of the vehicle by the Deputy Commissioner. While 
the vehicle remains under requisition, the owner does not exercise F 
any control thereover. The driver may still be the employee of 
the owner of the vehicle but he has to drive it as per the direction 
of the officer of the State, who is put in-charge thereof. Save 
and except for legal ownership, for all intent and purport, the 
registered owner of the vehicle loses entire control G 
thereover. 
[Para 10) [138 G-H, 139 A-CJ 
Rajasthan State Road Transport Cmporation v. Kai/ash Nath 
Kothari and Ors. (1997) 7 SCC 481; Guru Govekar v. Miss 
Filomena F Lobo and Ors. (1988) 3 SCC I; J\1ukesh K. Tripathi 
H 
136 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. 
A v. Senior Division Manager, LIC and Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 387; 
Pandey & Co. Builders (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Anr. (2007) 
1 sec 467 - referred to 
CIVIL APPELLATE illRlSDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5796 
B of2007 
c 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.5.2005 of the High 
Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in FAO (MVA) No. 208 of 
1997. 
Parmanand Gaur for the Appellant. 
J.S. Attri and B.K. Satija for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The short question involved in this appeal arising out of a 
judgment and order dated 17.05.2005 passed by the High Court of 
Himachal Pradesh in FAO (MVA) No. 208of1997 is as to whether 
in the event a car is requisitioned by the State for the purpose of 
E deploying t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.