UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus RAKESH KUMAR ARORA & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 13 S.C.R. 982 · Decided: 24-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, CYRIAC JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 13 S.C.R. 982 
' • 
A 
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
v. 
RAKESH KUMAR ARORA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5876 of 2008) 
B 
SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH,JJ] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 
c 
ss. 3, 4, 5 and 10 - Fatal accident - Claim petition - Driver 
of offending vehicle aged about 15 years - Tribunal holding 
Insurer not liable - High Court holding that there was no breach 
of contract on the part of insured and thus insurer was liable -
HELD: The vehicle in question was being driven by a person 
aged 15 years, who did not have any valid driving licence on 
D date of accident - s. 5 imposes a statutory responsibility upon 
the owner of a motor vehicle not to cause or permit any per-
son who does not satisfy the provisions of s. 3 or s. 4 to drive 
the vehicle - High Court did not advert to itself the provisions 
of ss. 3 and 4 of the Act and thus misdirected itself in law -
E The judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the 
Tribunal restored - However, as no stay was granted by the 
High Court and the Insurer deposited the entire amount, which 
has since been withdrawn by the claimant, the Insurer shall be 
entitled to recover the amount from owner of the vehicle. [para 
F 15-16, 18 and 21] 
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kaushalaya Devi & Ors. 
2008(8) SCR 500=2008(8) SCALE 500 - relied on. 
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Prithvi Raj 2008(1) SCR 
G 1180=2008(1) SCALE 727 - referred to. 
V Mepherson and another vs. Shiv Charan Singh and oth-
ers 1998 ACJ 601; and Skandia Insurance Company Limited 
vs. Koki/aben Chandravadan and others 1987 ACJ 411 - cited. 
H 
982 
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAKESH 
983 
) 
KUMAR ARORA & ORS. 
~ 
Case Law Reference 
A 
• 
2008(8) SCR 500 
relied on 
para 12 
2008(1)'SCR 1180 
referred to 
para 19 
\ 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5876 
I 
... 
~ 
of 2008 · · 
· 
· 
B 
f ' 
,From the final Judgment and Order dated 20.5.2004 of 
~ 
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LP.A 
I 
No. 1880 of 2000 
K.L. Nandram and Debasis Misra for the Appellant. 
c 
' 
i 
. Sachin Jain, Dr. Kailash Chand, Suraj Rahitesh and 
"' 
Romeshwar Prasad Goyal for the Respondents, 
The following Order of the Courtwas delivered 
'I 
1. Delay condoned. 
D 
2. Substitution allowed. 
-i 
" 
3. Application for Abatement is set aside. 
4. Leave granted. 
E 
5. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order 
dated 20.5.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and 
Haryana High court at Chandigarh whereby and whereunder 
the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellant herein from 
.... 
th.e judgment and order dated 9. 10.2000 passed by the learned 
F 
. Single Judge in the said FA.No. 2627of1998 was dismisseq, 
i 
·s. One Balwant Singh filed an application claiming a sum 
~ 
of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) by way of compensa-
: · tion for death of his son Virender Singh in an accident which 
. took place on 5.2.1997. The owner of the vehicle contested the G 
,, said claim. Appellant herein, inter alia, raised a contention be-
· fore the Tribunal that the driver of the vehicle, namely, Karan 
~ 
•· Arora was a minor on the date of the accident and was not hold-
·. ing a valid and effective driving licence and thus it was not Ii-
·able to reimburse the owner of the vehicle. 
H 
< 
' 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
984 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 
7. In view of the aforementioned stand taken by the appel-
lant inter alia the following issue was framed: 
Whether the accident resulting in death of Virender Singh 
alias Rinku, took place due to rash and negligent driving 
of car bearing registration No. HR41/3347 by respondent 
driver Karan Arora? 
8. While determining the said issue the learned Tribunal 
opined that the Insurance Company was not liable for payment 
of the amount of compensation to the claimants, stating: 
"From the bare perusal of the evidence of respondent 
driver Karan Arora appearing as RW1, which has been 
reproduced almost in its entirety in para nos. 19 to 22 at 
pages 10 to 13 of th is award, it becomes absolutely clear 
that he was aged about 15 years, he does not know driving; 
he was born on 7.8.1983 and that he is not having any 
driving licence till 25.7.1998, when his statement was 
recorded. In these circumstances, I return a firm finding 
that respondent driver Karan Arora had no valid/effective 
driving licence on the day of the accident i.e. 5.2.1997." 
9.An appeal under Sec.173 o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.