NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. versus PRABHU LAL

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 724 · Decided: 30-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 
v. 
PRABHULAL 
NOVEMBER 30, 2007 
B 
[C.K. THAKKER AND TAR UN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986-s. 12-Vehicle of complainant 
got damaged in an accident-Claim towards vehicle and other 
c expenses-Held: Documentary evidence by Insurance Company show 
that vehicle which met with accident was a 'transport vehicle '-Driver 
held licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle only-There was no requisite 
endorsement which would entitle him to ply such 'transport vehicle·-
Thus, complainant not entitled to any compensation and Insurance 
D company cannot be held liable-Order of District Forum upheld, and 
·~ 
that of State Commission an affirmed by National Commission set 
aside-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-ss. 147, 2(47), and 3-Central 
Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989-Rule 16. 
E 
The respondent filed a complaint under s.12 of the Consumer 
Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Dispute 
Redressal Forum that his vehicle, TAT A 709, was hit by a Roadways 
bus and got damaged. He claimed certain amount towards claim of 
vehicle, mental agony, survey fees and charges of driving the vehicle 
F 
from the place of accident. The Insurance Company contested and 
stated that it did not commit any deficiency in rendering service. The 
case oflnsurance Company was that the vehicle was being driven 
by 'RN', the brother of complainant who possessed only a licence 
to drive light motor vehicle and not heavy motor vehicle and as such 
could not have driven the vehicle in question which was 'transport 
G vehicle' in the absence of necessary endorsement as required and, 
therefore, the Insurance Company could not be held liable. The 
.• 
,. 
District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum held the claim as not 
tenable and dismissed the complaint. However, the Consumer 
Dispute Redressal Forum of the State allowed the appeal of the 
H 
724 
NEWINDIAASSURANCECO.LTD. v. PRABHULAL 
725 
claimant and the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum 
A 
confirmed the order. Aggrieved, the Insurance Company filed the 
instant appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, the District Forum considered B 
the assertion of the complainant and defence of the Insurance 
Company in the light of the relevant documentary evidence and 
rightly held that it was established that the vehicle which met with 
an accident was a 'transport vehicle' as defined under section 2(47) 
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; that it was 'RN' who was driving c 
the vehicle that met with an accident; that RN was having a licence 
to drive Light Motor Vehicle only and there was no endorsement as 
required by Section 3 of the Act read with Rule 16 of the Central 
-i 
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and Form No.6, and thus, 'RN was not 
having licence to drive 'transport vehicle'. In view of necessary 
.. 
documents on record, the Insurance Company was right in D 
submitting that *Ashok Gangadhar 's case did not apply to the instant 
case and the Insurance Company was not liable. 
[Para 33] [739-B, CJ 
1.2. Ashok Gangadhar 's case did not lay down that the driver E 
holding licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle need not have an 
endorsement to drive transport vehicle and yet he can drive such 
vehicle. It was on the peculiar facts of the case, as the Insurance 
Company neither pleaded nor proved that the vehicle was transport 
vehicle by placing on record the permit issued by the Transport F 
Authority that the Insurance Company was held liable. 
[Para 32] [738-H; 739-A] 
*Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 
[1999] 6 sec 620, distinguished. 
G 
> .. 
1.3. Section 14 of the Act provides for currency of licence to 
-j 
drive motor vehicles. Sub-section (2) states that if a licence is issued 
or renewed in respect of a transport vehicle, it can be done only for 
a period of three years, but, in case of any other vehicle, such 
H 
issuance or renewal can be for twenty years provided the person in 
726 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 12 S.C.R. 
A whose favour licence issued or renewed had not attained the age of 
50 years. In the instant case, the licence was renewed on November 
17, 1995 upto November 16, 2015 i.e. for a period of twenty years 
from which it is clear that the licence was in respect of 'a motor 
vehicle other than the transport vehicle'. [Para 34) [739-D-G) 
B 
1.4. The conclusion arrived at by the District Forum cannot be 
said to be faulty and it was right in holding that on the basis of the 

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