1. Vehicle owner entered into an agreement allowing another party to ply the vehicle; accident occurred leading to a third-party claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. (Para 4 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 1422
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, JJ.
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation - Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Company Ltd. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No.(S). 3315 of 2018 @ SLP(c) No. 26625 of 2016
Decided On : 27-03-2018
Important Points
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the registered owner, insurer, and the corporation are jointly and severally liable to make the payment of compensation to the claimants in the event of a motor vehicle accident.
Subject
Insurance Law - Motor Vehicle Insurance
Headnote
Insurance Liability - Motor Vehicle Accident - The court held that the registered owner, insurer, and the corporation shall be jointly and severally liable to the claimants in respect of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appellant, as the corporation, would be entitled to recover the amount paid to the respondents from the owner in terms of the agreement.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute revolved around the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation to a third party to indemnify the liability of the owner of the vehicle. The owner had entered into an agreement with the appellant, allowing the appellant to use the vehicle, and an accident occurred, leading to a claim for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the registered owner, insurer, and the corporation were jointly and severally liable to the claimants for the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appellant, as the corporation, was entitled to recover the amount paid to the respondents from the owner in terms of the agreement.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the third party to indemnify the liability of the owner of the vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that the registered owner, insurer, and the corporation would be jointly and severally liable to make the payment of compensation to the claimants. The purpose of compulsory insurance in the Act was enacted with an object to advance social justice.
Final Decision: The court held that the registered owner, insurer, and the corporation shall be jointly and severally liable to the claimants in respect of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appellant, as the corporation, would be entitled to recover the amount paid to the respondents from the owner in terms of the agreement.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Garima Prashad, AOR, For the Appellant; Ms. Meenakshi Midha, Mr. Kapil Midha, Mr. Bhavya Lakhwara, Advocates, Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR and Ms. A. Chowdhuryu, Advocate, For the Respondents
Ms. Garima Prashad, AOR, For the Appellant; Ms. Meenakshi Midha, Mr. Kapil Midha, Mr. Bhavya Lakhwara, Advocates, Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR and Ms. A. Chowdhuryu, Advocate, For the Respondents
Table of Contents
2. Whether the insurer is liable for third-party compensation when the vehicle was plied under an agreement between the owner and another party without the insurer's knowledge. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Compulsory insurance for third parties is a statutory provision for social justice; consent of the owner for vehicle use suffices regardless of separate insurance policies. (Para 6 )
4. Registered owners, insurers, and authorized users are jointly and severally liable for third-party compensation, regardless of whether the insurer was informed of the usage agreement. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
5. Registered owner, insurer, and the corporation held jointly and severally liable, with the corporation entitled to recover payments from the owner per their agreement. (Para 8 , 9 )
6. Does an agreement to ply a vehicle without the insurer's knowledge absolve the insurer of liability for third-party compensation?
No. Once a vehicle is insured, any person using it with the owner's consent is covered. The insurer cannot escape liability simply because they were unaware of the agreement between the owner and the user. (Para 6 )
7. Is a separate insurance policy required for a person using a vehicle independently under an agreement with the owner?
No. Section 146 of the Act does not require a separate insurance policy for a person using the vehicle independently with the owner's consent, as compulsory insurance aims to advance social justice for third parties. (Para 6 )
8. Who is liable to pay compensation to third parties when a vehicle is used by a corporation under an agreement with the registered owner?
The registered owner, the insurer, and the corporation using the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to make the payment of compensation to the claimants. (Para 7 , 8 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties finally at this stage.
3. The only dispute for consideration is as to whether the Insurance Company, i.e. respondent no.1 herein, shall be liable to pay compensation to the third party to indemnify the liability of the owner of the vehicle.
4. Undisputed facts are as follows: The owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. UP-65BT-1224 was respondent no.2. He had entered into an agreement with the appellant herein under which the said vehicle was given at the disposal of the appellant. The arrangement, in nutshell, was that the driver, i.e. respondent no.3, for driving the vehicle shall be that of the owner and conductor shall be provided by the appellant.Since the accident took place, respondent no.4 filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ("MACT"). Insofar as negligent driving of the vehicle in question is concerned which led to the accident, the same was established before the MACT which prompted MACT to grant compensation to respondent no.4 who was injured in the said accident. Respondent no. 4 had impleaded the appellant, respondent no.2 (owner) as well as respondent no.3 (driver) of the vehicle as opposite parties. The Insurance Company/respondent no.1 denied its liability on the ground that it was kept in dark about the agreement/arrangement that was entered into between respondent no.2 and the appellant under which the appellant was allowed to ply the said vehicle. This contention of respondent no. 1/Insurance Company was accepted by the MACT in the following manner:
"Respondent No. 2 has not filed any such documentary evidence on record which shows that before accident respondent No. 1 had information of vehicle involved in accident being under contract with respondent no.4. Had respondent no. 2 entered into contract with respondent no.4 within the knowledge of respondent no.1, then certainly liability for payment of compensation amount would have been of respondent no.1 but without knowledge of respondent no.1, respondent no.2 entered into contract with respondent no.4 for plying the vehicle involved in accident. In such circumstances, vehicle involved in accident was under the effective control of respondent no.4 at the time of accident and in view of principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. v. U.P.State Road Transport Corporation - 2010 (2) AWC 1351 (Lucknow Bench) , the liability is of respondent no.4 for payment of compensation amount."
5. The appellant preferred an appeal against the said judgment which has been dismissed by the High Court relying upon the earlier Judgment in the case of United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. v. U.P.State Road Transport Corporation - 2010 (2) AWC 1351(Lucknow Bench) .
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we find that the issue involved is no more res-integra and it stands settled by the judgment of this Court in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Kulsum & Ors., 2011(8) SCC 142 . In the aforesaid case almost on similar facts, this Court held as under:
"30. Thus, for all practical purposes, for the relevant period, the Corporation had become the owner of the vehicle for the specific period. If the Corporation had become the owner even for the specific period and the vehicle having been insured at the instance of original owner, it will be deemed that the vehicle was transferred along with the Insurance Policy in existence to the Corporation and thus Insurance Company would not be able to escape its liability to pay the amount of compensation.
31. The liability to pay compensation is based on a statutory provision. Compulsory Insurance of the vehicle is meant for the benefit of the Third Parties. The liability of the owner to have compulsory insurance is only in regard to Third Party and not to the property. Once the vehicle is insured, the owner as well as any other person can use the vehicle with the consent
