SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(SC) 227

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Navin Sinha, Krishna Murari, JJ.
NIRMALA KOTHARI – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1999-2000 OF 2020 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 14739-14740 OF 2018)
Decided On : 04-03-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Jasmeet Singh, Rusheet Saluja, Saif Ali, Satyendra Mani Tripathi, Pushpendra Singh Bhadoriya, Naman Joshi, Shagun Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Suman Bagga, Manjeet Chawla, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Breach of section 149(2)(a)(ii) occurs when employer is willfully negligent while hiring driver.

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) - Employer while hiring a driver required to see if driver has a driving licence prima facie appearing genuine - Employer not expected to ascertain veracity of the licence - Breach of section 149(2)(a)(ii) occurs when employer is willfully negligent while hiring driver - Instantly driver having a licence - Hired after checking licence - Record not available in RTO office - Insurer cannot absolved of its liability to indemnify insured. (Para 11, 12)

Facts of the case:

The Appellant/Complainant, Nirmala Kothari’s husband, Vinod Ray Kothari was owner of a Hyundai Elantra vehicle which was insured with the Insurance Company for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- .

The said vehicle met with an accident with a tractor as a result of which the Appellant’s husband, Vinod Ray Kothari and his daughter died and the vehicle was damaged. The Respondent/ Insurance Company stated in the repudiation letter that the driver Dharmendra Singh Chauhan did not have a proper driving licence at the time of the accident. The complainant filed a consumer complaint, seeking directions to the Respondent/Insurance Company to pay the Insured declared value (IDV) i.e. a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till payment and also to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation cost. The District Forum allowed the said consumer complaint and directed payment of an amount of Rs. 3,57,500/- to the complainant, as assessed by the surveyor alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. and cost of litigation of Rs. 2,500/-. The Respondent/ Insurance Company challenged the same by way of appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed.

The National Commission absolved the Respondent/ Insurance Company of its liability since no record of the licence of the Driver was found with the licencing authority.

Finding of the Court:

Breach of section 149(2)(a)(ii) occurs when employer is willfully negligent while hiring driver.

Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

Leave granted.

2. The Appellant/Complainant, Nirmala Kothari’s husband, Vinod Ray Kothari was owner of a Hyundai Elantra vehicle, registration no. RJ36CA 0111, which was insured with the Insurance Company for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- .

3. The said vehicle met with an accident with a tractor bearing no. HR38K 3216, on 06.06.2010 as a result of which the Appellant’s husband, Vinod Ray Kothari, who was the owner of the car, and his daughter died and the vehicle was damaged. The driver of the vehicle, Dharmendra Singh Chauhan got an FIR registered with the police. The Respondent/ Insurance Company, on intimation having been given to them, appointed a spot surveyor, and also a regular surveyor to carry out survey in the matter, but the claim was rejected by them vide their letter dated 28.03.2011. The Respondent/ Insurance Company stated in the repudiation letter that the driver Dharmendra Singh Chauhan did not have a proper driving licence at the time of the accident. The licence produced by him, alleged to have been procured from the office of the licencing authority, Sheikh Sarai, Delhi could not be verified, as the concerned officer of the transport department returned their letter with the endorsement that the record pertaining to the said licence was not available. Alleging deficiency on the part of the Respondent/ Insurance Company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint, seeking directions to the Respondent/Insurance Company to pay the Insured declared value (IDV) i.e. a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till payment and also to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation cost. The District Forum vide their order dated 30.05.2012, allowed the said consumer complaint and directed payment of an amount of Rs. 3,57,500/- to the complainant, as assessed by the surveyor alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. and cost of litigation of Rs. 2,500/-. Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, the Respondent/ Insurance Company challenged the same by way of appeal before the State Commission, but the said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 18.09.2015, the Respondent/ Insurance Company came before National Commission by way of the Revision Petition No. 2835/2015.

4. The complaint no. 227/2012 had been filed by the same complainant Nirmala Kothari, against the Respondent/ Insurance Company, requesting for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- as accident claim with interest @ 9% per annum and compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 11,000/- for cost of litigation. The Respondent/ Insurance Company repudiated the said claim also vide their letter dated 14.02.2012 on the same ground that Dharmendra Singh Chauhan, the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident in question.

5. The consumer complaint no. 227/2012 was also allowed by the District Forum, vide order dated 28.02.2013 and the Respondent/Insurance Company was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- for personal accident claim along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint and the cost of litigation of Rs. 2,500/-. Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, the Respondent/ Insurance Company challenged the same by way of appeal no. 366/2013 before the State Commission. The said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order dated 01.08.2016, the Respondent/ Insurance Company came before the National Commission by way of the Revision Petition No. 3053/2016. The National Commission absolved the Respondent/ Insurance Comapany of its liability since no record of the licence of the Driver was found with the licencing authority. Thus, aggrieved the Appellant/Complainant has come up in appeal.

6. It is the case of the Respondent/ Insurance Company that in the absence of a valid and effective driving licence with the dr


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top