NEW INDIAN ASSURANCE CO. LTD. versus ROSHANBEN RAHEMANSHA FAKIR & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 8 S.C.R. 328 · Decided: 12-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 328 
NEW INDIAN ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 
v. 
ROSHANBEN RAHEMANSHA FAKIR & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3496 of 2008) 
MAY 12, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- s. 10- Motor accident - Claim 
for compensation - Courts below holding insurance company 
c liable to reimburse the claim - On appeal, held: Insurance 
Company not liable to pay the claim - Driver of the offending 
vehicle was not holding a valid licence - Direction to the In-
surance Company to satisfy the claim and later recover the 
same from the owner of the offending vehicle - Motor Vehicles 
0 
Rules, 1989 - r. 51 - Notification issued by Central Govern-
ment vide S.O. 451 (E) dated 19.6.1992 - Constitution of In-
){ . 
dia, 1950-Article 142. 
The vehicle in question was insured as a goods car-
rying public carrier. The vehicle caused accident. Claim 
E for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was 
contested by the appellant-Insurance Company on the 
ground that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid 
licence to drive the offending vehicle, as he was holding 
a licence for driving a three-wheeler. Claims Tribunal held 
F the Insurance Company liable to reimburse the claim. In 
appeal, High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal. Hence 
the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: Driver of the offending vehicle was not hold-
ing an effective licence. Possession of an effective licence 
is necessary in terms of Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles 
~ 
·~ 
Act. The Notification issued by Central Government vide 
S.O. 451 (E) dated 19.6.1992 clearly postulates that a three 
H 
328 
NEW INDIAN ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. 
329 
ROSHANBEN RAHEMANSHA FAKIR & ANR. 
,.I 
wheeled vehicle for transport of passengers or goods A 
comes within the purview of clause 5 of the table ap-
pended thereto. The licence granted in favour of the driver 
goes to show that the same was granted for a vehicle 
other than the transport vehicle. It was valid from 
13.05.2004 to 12.05.2024. Section 14(2)(a) provides that a B 
driving licence issued or renewed under the Act shall, in 
;I\ 
case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle will be effec-
tive for a period of three years whereas in the case of any 
other vehicle it can be issued or renewed for a period of 
20 years from the date of issuance or renewal. The fact c 
that the licence was granted for a period of 20 years, thus, 
clearly shows that the driver of the vehicle, was not 
granted a valid driving licence for driving a transport ve-
hicle. Hence, the impugned judgment cannot be sus-
tained. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the D 
* 
Constitution of India, it is directed that the appellant may 
satisfy the award in favour of the claimants to recover the 
same from the owner. [Paras 10, 12 and 15] [334-E, 333-F-
H; 334-A; 336-C-D] 
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors. 
E 
""" 
2004 (3) SCC 297; National Insurance Company Ltd. v. 
Annappa lrappa Nesaria and Ors. 2008 (1) SCALE 642 - re-
lied on . 
..-I 
National Insurance Company v. Kusum Rai 2006 (4) SCC 
.... 
250 - referred to. 
F 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3496 
of 2008 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2006 of 
the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal No. G 
; 
+ 
3441 of 2006 
Dr. Meera Agarwal and Ramesh Chandra Mishra for the 
Appellant. 
Sarda Devi for the Respondents. 
H 
330 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 8 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
). 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order 
dated 13.11.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court 
B of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal No.3441 of 2006 
whereby and whereunder an appeal preferred by the appellant 
herein from a judgment and order dated 5.5.2006 passed by • 
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main}, Rajkot in MPCP 
No.1211 of 2005 has been dismissed. 
c 
3. One Majothee Salim Amadbhai was holder of a licence 
of a three wheeler. The licence was not meant to be used to 
drive transport vehicle. The vehicle was owned by one 
Rashmikant Natvarlal Joshi, Respondent No.2. The Tribunal 
correctly noticed the description of the class of vehicle, i.e., an 
D Autorikshaw Delivery Van. It was not being used for a private 
purpose. It was a commercbl vehicle. Respondent No.2, ad-
mittedly, entered into a contract of insurance in respect of the 
said vehicle. Certificate of insuran

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