Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.
Central Bank of India - Appellant
Versus
Jagbir Singh - Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3645 OF 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) 2343 of 2014)
Decided on: 16-04-2015
(b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 146 – Liability of financer – Vehicle purchased out of loan sanctioned and disbursed by appellant Bank – Vehicle initially insured but the same lapsing and the vehicle not insured on date of accident – Financing Bank only liable to insure the vehicle on its coming on road – Thereafter the bank is not liable to renew the insurance from time to time – Appellant Bank not liable. (Para 8, 9. 10)
(1999) 6 SCC 361; AIR 2015 SC 290 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Respondent Jagbir Singh purchased a tractor after getting loan sanctioned from the appellant-Bank. In terms of conditions of loan the respondent was making payments of the loan instalments to the Bank.
The vehicle was initially insured as required under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but no premium of insurance was paid by the respondent for the period after 25.5.2005.
On 24.9.2007 at about 11.50 a.m., an accident occurred between the above vehicle and a motorcycle in which Pankaj son of Babu Ram Garg, died due to rash and negligent driving on the part of Diwan Singh, driver of the tractor owned by respondent Jagbir Singh.
The parents of the deceased filed claim petition which was allowed awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.4,01,460/-with 7.5% interest per annum, against driver and owner of the vehicle.
On the date of accident the vehicle was not insured with any of the insurance companies, as required under Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The respondent filed complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum praying that the Central Bank of India (appellant), i.e., the creditor bank should be made liable to pay the compensation, awarded against him by the Tribunal.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, held that the Bank (present appellant) is liable for the legal consequences for not getting the insurance renewed.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula, before whom the Central Bank of India (creditor bank) filed First Appeal dismissing the appeal on the ground that in terms of loan agreement the Bank has a right to recover insurance premium, held that the Bank cannot escape its liability.
The Bank finally approached NCDRC by filing Revision Petition but same was filed with delay of 230 days, and NCDRC in its wisdom did not find the explanation advanced for condonation of delay as sufficient, as such, the revision petition was dismissed as barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
Delay, having been explained, ought to be condoned. Appellant bank is not liable.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Judgment
Prafulla C. Pant, J.
This appeal is directed against order dated 19.11.2013, passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “NCDRC”), New Delhi, in Revision Petition No. 3648 of 2013 whereby the revision filed by the present appellant is dismissed.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.
3. Brief facts of the case, giving rise to this appeal, are that respondent Jagbir Singh purchased a tractor bearing registration No. HR-14B-3913, after getting loan sanctioned from the appellant-Bank. In terms of conditions of loan the respondent was making deposits of the loan instalments of loan to the Bank. The vehicle was initially insured as required under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but no premium of insurance was paid by the respondent for the period after 25.5.2005. On 24.9.2007 at about 11.50 a.m., an accident occurred between the above vehicle and motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-3S-AY-0421, in which Pankaj son of Babu Ram Garg, died due to rash and negligent driving on the part of Diwan Singh, driver of the tractor owned by respondent Jagbir Singh. The parents of the deceased filed claim petition No. 208/11/2007 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, which was allowed by said Tribunal, vide its order dated 17.11.2012 awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.4,01,460/-with 7.5% interest per annum, against driver and owner of the vehicle. It has not been disputed between the parties that on the date of accident the vehicle No. HR-14B-3913 was not insured with any of the insurance companies, as required under Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
4. The respondent filed complaint (No. 157 of 208) before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar, praying that the Central Bank of India (appellant), i.e., the creditor bank should be made liable to pay the compensation, awarded against him by the Tribunal. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, vide its order dated 11.11.2009, held that the Bank (present appellant) is liable for the legal consequences for not getting the insurance renewed. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula, before whom the Central Bank of India (creditor bank) filed First Appeal No. 40 of 2010, vide its order dated 18.10.2012, dismissing the appeal on the ground that in terms of loan agreement the Bank has a right to recover insurance premium, held that the Bank cannot escape its liability. It appears that the Bank finally approached NCDRC by filing Revision Petition No. 3648 of 2013, but same was filed with delay of 230 days, and NCDRC in its wisdom did not find the explanation advanced for condonation of delay as sufficient, as such, the revision petition was dismissed as barred by limitation. Hence, this appeal through special leave.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out before us that the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was received by the appellant only on 26.11.2012, after the same was dispatched by the Commission on 19.11.2012. It is further submitted that the branch of the appellant bank is situated in a remote village and due to shortage of staff the matter could be taken up by the Regional Office only in December, 2012. It is contended that since it took time in obtaining the necessary permission for filing the revision, as such, the delay of 230 days, occurred in filing the revision petition, should have been condoned by the NCDRC. Admittedly, the revision petition was filed on 11.10.2013.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, we find that NCDRC has not considered properly the well explained delay in filing the revision petition before it. In our opinion, the time taken by the appellant bank in seeking permission to file the revision petition, as the matter had to be processed at various levels, cannot be said to have been not sufficiently explained for the purpo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
