http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 12

PETITIONER:

SKANDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

KOKILABEN CHANDRAVADAN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/04/1987

BENCH:

THAKKAR, M.P. (J)

BENCH:

THAKKAR, M.P. (J)

RAY, B.C. (J)

CITATION:

1987 AIR 1184 1987 SCR (2) 752

1987 SCC (2) 654 JT 1987 (2) 43

1987 SCALE (1)648

CITATOR INFO :

R 1991 SC1769 (12)

ACT:

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939--Ss. 94, 95 and 96--Victim of

motor vehicle accident--Compensation from insurance

company--Insurance against third party risk--Immunity of

Insurance Company--Extent of--In case of breach of condi-

tions of Insurance policy.

Statutory Interpretation--Intention of Legislature

Ascertainment of--To probe the motive and philosophy of the

relevant statutory provisions.

HEADNOTE:

The driver of a truck handed over the control of his

vehicle to the cleaner while its engine was running and the

ignition key was in the ignition lock. In the absence of the

driver, who had gone for bringing snacks the cleaner inter-

fered with the vehicle. which resulted in an accident.

The Tribunal as well as the High Court held that this

being the immediate cause of the accident, the owner of the

truck was vicariously liable. The High Court further held

that since the owner never gave permission to his cleaner to

drive, he could not he held guilty of the breach of the

contractual condition embodied in the policy of insurance

and, therefore, the insurer cannot plead any exception on

the ground that the owner had committed breach of the speci-

fied condition.

In the appeal to this Court, on behalf of the

appellant-Insurance Company it was contended: (i) that in

view of the exclusion clause in the insurance policy the

Insurance Company would not be liable if it was established

that the accident occurred when an unlicenced person was at

the wheels; (ii) that the exclusion clause is strictly in

accordance with the statutorily permissible exclusion em-

bodied in s. 96(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939

and (iii) that under the circumstances the appellant-Company

is not under a legal obligation to satisfy the judgments

against the insured.

Dismissing the Appeal,

HELD: 1. The exclusion clause in the policy of insurance

does not exonerate the Insurer. [766B]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 12

753

Kilari Mammi and Others. v. Barium Chemicals Ltd. &

Ors., A.I.R. 1979 (Andhra Pradesh) 75, approved.

Kirpa Natha Chakravarthy and others v. Rup Chand Luna-

wat, A.I.R. 1955 Assam p. 157; Shankar Rao v. M/s Babulal

Fouzdar and another, A.I.R. 1980 (Madhya Pradesh) 9. 154;

Orissa State Commercial Transport Corporation, Cuttack v.

Dhumali Bewa & Ors. etc., A.I.R. 1982 (Orissa) 70 and Dwarka

Prasad Jhunjhunwala and another v. Sushila Devi & Ors.,

A.I.R. 1983 Patna 246, overruled.

2. The vicarious liability of the owner of the vehicle

for damages arising out of the accident cannot be disputed

having regard to the general principles of law also having

regard to the violation of the obligation imposed by s. 84

of the Act which provides that no person driving or in

charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle

to remain stationary in any public place, unless there is in

the driver’s seat a person duly licensed to drive the vehi-

cle or unless the mechanism has been stopped and a brake or

brakes applied or such other measures taken as to ensure

that the vehicle cannot accidentally be put in motion in the

absence of the driver. [764B-C]

3. In order to divine the intention of the legislature

in the course of interpretation of the relevant provisions

there can scarcely be a better test than that of probing

into the motive and philosophy of the relevant provisions

keeping in mind the goals to be achieved by enacting the

same. [761G]