SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER, JJ.
MAHAMOODA AND OTHERS - APPELLANTS
VERSUS
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS - RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6209 OF 2004,
DECIDED ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2004
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 149(2)(a)(ii) and 147- Motor accident - Liability sin view of the decision in Madhav Tamble case, (1996)2 SCC 328, the Insurance Company had no liability- Correctness of the said decision was considered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004)3 SCC 297- In that case it was clarified that even when the offending vehicle was driven by a person holding a learner's licence, the insurer's liability existed- In case the Insurance Company had withdrawn the amount deposited in the High Court earlier, the same shall be deposited within four weeks with the Tribunal so that claimants could withdraw it. [Paras 4 and 5]
ORDER
1. LEAVE GRANTED.
2. HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.
3. DELAY CONDONED.
4. WE FIND THAT THE HIGH COURT RELIED ON A DECISION OF THIS COURT IN NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. V. MANDAR MADHAV TAMBE1. THE ISSUE RELATED TO THE LIABILITY OF AN INSURER WHEN THE OFFENDING VEHICLE IS DRIVEN BY A PERSON HOLDING A LEARNERS LICENCE. THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION IN MADHAV TAMBE EASEL THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS NO LIABILITY, THOUGH THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HEREIN REFERRED TO AS "THE TRIBUNAL" HAD FIXED THE LIABILITY ON THE INSURANCE COMPANY. CORRECTNESS OF THE DECISION IN MADHAV TAMBE EASEL CAME TO BE CONSIDERED IN NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. SWARAN SINGH2. IT WAS HELD THAT MADHAV TAMBE CASE1 WAS DECIDED ON THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE WITHOUT TAKING NOTE OF THE BINDING PRECEDENTS. IT WAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT EVEN WHEN THE OFFENDING VEHICLE WAS DRIVEN BY A PERSON HOLDING A LEARNERS LICENCE, THE INSURERS LIABILITY EXISTED. THIS POSITION HAS BEEN CLARIFIED IN PARAS 93 AND 94 OF THE JUDGMENT.
5. IT APPEARS THAT THE AWARDED AMOUNT WITH INTEREST WAS DEPOSITED IN THE HIGH COURT. THERE IS NO CLEAR INDICATION AS TO WHETHER THE INSURANCE COMPANY WITHDREW THE AMOUNT AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT MANDAR MADHAV CASE1 ON WHICH RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE HIGH COURT HAS BEEN DISTINGUISHED IN THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION IN SWARAN SINGH CASE2 THE CLAIMANTS SHALL BE ENTITLED TO THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY DEPOSITED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY. THEY SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO ANY INTEREST FOR THE SUBSEQUENT PERIOD, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE DELAY IN APPROACHING THIS COURT. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISPOSED OF. WE HAVE CONDONED THE DELAY IN THIS APPEAL CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IN CASE THE INSURANCE COMPANY HAS WITHDRAWN THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE HIGH COURT EARLIER, THE SAME SHALL BE DEPOSITED WITHIN FOUR WEEKS WITH THE TRIBUNAL SO THAT CLAIMANTS CAN WITHDRAW IT.
6. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED. NO COSTS.
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.