SURENDRA KUMAR BHILAWE versus THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Citation: [2020] 7 S.C.R. 39 · Decided: 18-06-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
39
SURENDRA KUMAR BHILAWE
v.
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
(Civil Appeal No. 2632 of 2020)
JUNE 18, 2020
[R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
ss. 2(30) and 157 – Damage to the insured vehicle in road
accident – FIR lodged regarding the accident – Spot survey by
Surveyor and Loss Assessor appointed by insurer – Insurance claim
– Repudiated by insurer on the ground that the insured vehicle was
already sold to someone else and that there was delay in filing police
complaint and reporting the accident to the insurer – Case of the
claimant was that though Sale agreement was entered into but the
vehicle was not transferred to the transferee as the financier Bank
had not issued ‘No Objection’ to the claimant for transfer – District
consumer Forum as well as State Commission allowed the claim of
the insured – National Consumer Commission disallowed the
insurance claim – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: National
Commission erred in reversing the concurrent factual findings
ignoring the admitted facts that the registration of the insured vehicle
and permit was in the name of the claimant on the date of accident;
that claimant was paying insurance premium; that insurance policy
was in the name of the claimant and that the financer Bank had not
issued ‘No Objection’ for transfer of the insured vehicle – National
Commission also overlooked the definition of ‘owner’ in s. 2(30)
and provision for transferability of a policy of insurance u/s. 157.
Words and Phrases:
“Owner” – Meaning  of, in the context of s. 2(30) of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. There can be no doubt that property in a specific
movable property is transferred to the buyer at such time as
parties to the contract intend it to be transferred, provided such
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 39
39
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
immovable property is free to be transferred, and/or in other
words capable of being transferred. If there is an impediment to
the transfer, as in the instant case, where ‘No Objection’ of the
financier bank was  imperative for transfer of the said truck, there
could be no question of transfer of title until the impediment were
removed, for otherwise the contract for transfer would be
injurious to the financier bank, immoral, unlawful and void under
Section 10 read with Sections 23 and 24 of the Contract Act, 1872.
It was thus, an implicit condition of the agreement for transfer of
the said truck, that the transfer would be complete only upon
issuance of ‘No Objection” by the financier bank and upon
compliance with the statutory requirements for transfer of a motor
vehicle. The contract in the present case, could not possibly have
been an unconditional contract of transfer of movable property in
deliverable state, but a contract to transfer, contingent upon ‘No
Objection” from financier Bank, and compliance with the statutory
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules framed
thereunder. Sections 19 and 20 of the Sale of Goods Act are not
attracted. [Paras 31-34][53-G-H; 54-A-C]
2. The National Commission overlooked the definition of
‘owner’ in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. In Section
2(30) ‘owner’ has been defined to mean “a person in whose name
a motor vehicle stands registered and, where such person is a
minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor
vehicle which is the subject of a hire purchase agreement, or an
agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person
in possession of the vehicle under that agreement”. Even
assuming that the purchaser was in possession of the said truck
at the time of the accident, such possession was not under any
agreement of lease, hire purchase or hypothecation with the
financier Bank. The definition of owner under the old Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939 has undergone a change. Legislature has
consciously changed the definition of ‘owner’ to mean the person
in whose name the motor vehicle stands. [Paras 35 and 36]
[54-D-G]
3. The National Commission also overlooked other
applicable provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988, particularly
Sections 39 to 41, 50, 51, 66, 69, 82, 84(g), 86(c), 146, 157, 177
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
41
and 192A. The National Commission patently erred in holding
that the appellant had been paid the consideration without even
examining if the purchaser had paid any instalments to the
financier Bank. [Paras 37 & 39][54-G; 59-B]
4. The finding of the

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