Back
SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR, S.RACHAIAH
Narasimulu Nandini Memorial Education Trust, Situated at No. 1-7-7 Near Goal Market, Station Area Raichur-584101 Owner of Bus No. KA-36/A-1164 Represented by Mahalinga. B Managing Trustee – Appellant
Versus
Banu Begum W/o Late Mohammed Husen – Respondent
What is the liability of an insurance company when the offending vehicle did not possess a valid permit and fitness certificate on the date of the accident, but these were subsequently renewed?
Key Points: - The appeal was preferred by the owner of the offending vehicle after being saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the claimants (!) . - The insurer of the offending vehicle argued that they were not liable to indemnify the owner because the fitness certificate and permit were not in force on the date of the accident (!) . - The appellant argued that the insurance policy was in force and that the subsequent renewal of the fitness certificate and permit would relate back to the date of expiry, citing Section 81(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act (!) . - The court considered the interpretation of Section 81(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which deals with the renewal of permits and its effect from the date of expiry (!) (!) . - The court relied on a coordinate bench judgment in United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Yasmin Begum, holding that Section 81(5) applies to situations where a vehicle is plying pending renewal, creating a deemed permit (!) . - The court found that the ratio in Yasmin Begum could be applied to the present case, deeming the permit to be in force on the day of the accident due to the effect of Section 81(5) (!) . - The court concluded that the insurance company could not disown its responsibility to indemnify the liability of the appellant (!) . - The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the tribunal was modified, directing the insurance company to indemnify the liability and pay the compensation amount (!) (!) . - The insurance company was directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest within four weeks (!) .
JUDGMENT :
1. The owner of the offending vehicle having been saddled with the liability to pay compensation to the claimants, has preferred this appeal. The factual background is as follows :
2. Name of the deceased in the accident is Syed Wali. On 28.9.2015, about 4.00, PM he was riding a motor cycle with registration No. KA-36/W-3987 with one Mr.Mohammed Shali on the pillion. As they came near the by-pass of Raichur-Merched Road, a school bus with registration No. KA-36/A-1164 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver hit the motor cycle while overtaking it. As a result Syed Wali met instant death and the pillion rider was injured.
3. In the claim petition laid by the dependants of the deceased, the insurer of the offending vehicle took a specific defence that since on the date of accident, the fitness certificate and the permit were not in force, it was not liable to indemnify the liability of the owner although the insurance policy was in force. The tribunal computed the total compensation payable to the dependents at Rs.6,18,000/-with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and accepting the defence of the insurer absolved it of its liability and directed the owner of the offen
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
