IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
United India Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Vinod And Others - Respondents
M.A. No. 1054 of 2015
Decided On : 25-06-2019
Motor Vehicles Act - Liability of Insurance Company - Sections 39, 56, 192, 140, 145(c), 147, 66 - The court held that the absence of a fitness certificate for a vehicle is a fundamental breach of the law, violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, making the Insurance Company not jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. However, the Insurance Company shall be liable to make payment of the compensation amount with liberty to recover the same from the owner.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, where the Insurance Company was made jointly and severally liable to pay compensation for injuries suffered in a vehicular accident. The court found that the absence of a fitness certificate for the vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the absence of a fitness certificate for the vehicle constituted a fundamental breach of the law, making the Insurance Company not jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. However, the Insurance Company shall be liable to make payment of the compensation amount with liberty to recover the same from the owner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the absence of a fitness certificate for the vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, making the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of a fitness certificate for the vehicle constituted a fundamental breach of the law, violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, and thus the Insurance Company was not jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
Final Decision: The award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, was affirmed with the modification that the Insurance Company shall be liable to make payment of the compensation amount with liberty to recover the same from the owner.
JUDGMENT :
This miscellaneous appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against the award dated 27-8-2015 passed by 14th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 298/2014 by which the Insurance Company has been made jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
2. Since the factum of accident has not been denied, therefore, suffice it to say that the respondent No. 1 Vinod suffered grievous injuries in a vehicular accident which took place on 28-3-2013 caused by Tavera four wheeler bearing registration No. MP37T-0233. The said offending vehicle was registered as taxi and the Claims Tribunal in its paragraph 30 of the award has come to a conclusion that it was not having fitness certificate. However, the contention of the Insurance Company has been rejected on the ground that non-availability of fitness certificate cannot be said to be violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as in absence of any such condition, it cannot be said that non-availability of the fitness certificate in any manner violates the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Manoj and others, reported in 2014 ACJ 2380 has held that since, the Counsel for the Insurance Company could not satisfy that the non-availability of the fitness certificate would amount to violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, it was held that the Insurance Company is liable.
5. Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for registration of the vehicle and section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for fitness certificate.
6. Sections 39 and 56 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under :
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
56. Certificate of fitness of transport vehicles.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 59 and 60, a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of section 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government, issued by the prescribed authority, or by an authorized testing station mentioned in sub-section (2), to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder :
Provided that where the prescribed authority or the authorized testing station refuses to issue such certificate, it shall supply the owner of the vehicle with its reasons in writing for such refusal.
(2) The “authorized testing station” referred to in sub-section (1) means a vehicle service station or public or private garage which the State Government, having regard to the experience, training and ability of the operator of such station or garage and the testing equipment and the testing personnel therein, may specify in accordance with the rules made by the Central Government for regulation and control of such stations or garages.
(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), a certificate of fitness shall remain effective for such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government having regard to the objects of this Act.
(4) The prescribed authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing cancel a certificate of fitness at any time, if satisfied that the vehicle to which it relates no longer complies with all
Amrit paul Singh and another vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd and others
Amrit Paul Singh vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Chinnamma George vs. N. K. Raju
Lakshmi Chand vs. Reliance General Insurance
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and others
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Challa Upendra Rao
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Manoj and others
Shamanna and another vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.