2020 Supreme(SC) 412

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. Banumathi, Indira Banerjee, JJ.
Surendra Kumar Bhilawe – Appellant
Versus
The New India Assurance Company Limited – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2632 of 2020(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20569 of 2016)
Decided on : 18-06-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) There could be no reason for a transferee of an insured motor vehicle, to refrain from applying for endorsement of transfer in Insurance Policy Certificate when insurance covering third party risk is mandatory for using a vehicle.
(2) In case of a major accident, slight delay in lodging FIR, cannot defeat legitimate claim of insured.
(3) If there is an impediment to transfer, where ‘No Objection’ of financier bank is imperative for transfer of truck, there can be no question of transfer of title until impediment are removed.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23 – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 2(30) and 157 – Contract Act, 1872 – Section 10 read with Sections 23 and 24 – Insurance – Damage caused to insured Truck in accident – Despite sale agreement, appellant continued to be registered owner of truck, on the date of accident – Complaint dismissed by National Commission, reversing orders passed by Fora below – Even after date of purported sale agreement, Appellant continued to pay instalments to Bank towards repayment of loan for purchase of Truck – Bank had neither released truck from hypothecation nor given ‘No Objection” for sale of the said truck – No steps were taken by Appellant or by purchaser to have registration of truck transferred in name of purchaser – Permit for operating truck was still in name of Appellant over three years after purported sale agreement – There was no material evidence at all before National Commission, on the basis of which National Commission could have reversed concurrent factual findings of District Forum and State Commission – If there is an impediment to transfer, as in instant case, where ‘No Objection’ of financier bank was imperative for transfer of truck, there could be no question of transfer of title until impediment were removed, for otherwise contract for transfer would be injurious to financier bank, immoral, unlawful and void under Section 10 read with Sections 23 and 24 of Contract Act, 1872 – Definition of ‘owner’ has been overlooked and ignored by National Commission – There could be no reason for a transferee of an insured motor vehicle, to refrain from applying for endorsement of transfer in Insurance Policy Certificate when insurance covering third party risk is mandatory for using a vehicle – Policy of insurance in this case, was apparently a comprehensive policy of Insurance which covered third party risk as well – Insurer could not have repudiated only one part of contract of insurance to reimburse owner for losses when it could not have evaded its liability to third parties under same contract of Insurance in case of death, injury, loss or damage by reason of an accident – In case of a major accident, slight delay in lodging FIR, cannot defeat legitimate claim of insured – National Commission erred in law in reversing concurrent factual findings of District Forum and State Commission – Impugned order of National Commission set aside and order of District Forum restored – Insurer shall pay to Appellant a sum of Rs.4,93,500/- as directed by District Forum with 9% interest. (Paras 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 40, 44, 50, 51, 53 and 57)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal is against a judgment and order dated 23.2.2015 passed by the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, allowing Revision Petition filed by the Respondent, setting aside an order dated 09.1.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur, allowing the Complaint Case No.404 of 2012; and an order dated 22.7.2014 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Pandri, Raipur (C.G), dismissing appeal of Insurer against said order of District Forum; and dismissing complaint filed by Appellant.

Findings of the Court:

National Commission erred in law in reversing the concurrent factual findings of District Forum and the National Commission ignoring vital admitted facts as stated above, including registration of the said truck being in the name of the Appellant, even as on the date of the accident, over three years after the alleged transfer, payment by the Appellant of the premium for the Insurance Policy, issuance of Insurance Policy in the name of the Appellant, permit in the name of the Appellant even after three years and seven months, absence of ‘No Objection’ from the financier bank etc. and also overlooking definition of owner in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as also other relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder, including in particular the transferability of a policy of insurance under Section 157.

Result : Appeal allowed.