Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Rambir & Ors. on 17 July, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 17th July, 2012
+ MAC.APP. 742/2012
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. .... Appellant
Through Mr. M.N.Singh, Adv.
versus
RAMBIR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL.11979/2012 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The Application is allowed.
MAC.APP. 742/2012
1. The Appellant New India Assurance Company Limited takes
exception to a judgment dated 13.03.2012 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby while
awarding a compensation of `3,43,414/- in favour of the First
Respondent for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicle
accident which occurred on 03.04.2007, it declined to exonerate
the Appellant of its liability in spite of the fact that it has
successfully proved the breach of the terms of policy.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company urges
that question whether the Insurance Company has any liability
at all to pay the compensation and later on recover it from the
owner of the vehicle has been referred to a larger Bench in the
case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Parvathneni,
(2009) 8 SCC 785 and therefore, the Insurance Company could
not have been made liable to pay the compensation.
3. There are three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in
Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy, (1996) 5 SCC 21 and
National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh & Ors.,
(2004) 3 SCC 297, which have held that even where a conscious
or willful breach as provided under Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) is proved, the Insurance
Company would still remain liable to the innocent third party
but may recover the compensation paid from the insured.
4. The three Judges Bench decision of the Supreme Court in
Swaran Singh (supra) emphasized that the liability of the
insurer to satisfy the decree passed in favour of the third party
was its statutory. It approved the decision in Sohan Lal Passi v.
P. Sesh Reddy, (1996) 5 SCC 21, New India Assurance Co.,
Shimla v. Kamla and Ors., (2001) 4 SCC 342; and United India
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lehru & Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 338.
Paras 73, 104 and 105 of the report in Swaran Singh (supra) are
extracted hereunder:-
"73. The liability of the insurer is a statutory one. The
liability of the insurer to satisfy the decree passed in
favour of a third party is also statutory.
x x x x x x
x x x x x x x
104. It is, therefore, evident from the discussions made
hereinbefore that the liability of the insurance company
to satisfy the decree at the first instance and to recover
the awarded amount from the owner or driver thereof has
been holding the field for a long time.
105. Apart from the reasons stated hereinbefore, the
doctrine of stare decisis persuades us not to deviate from
the said principle."
5. Thus, the Appellant was only entitled to recovery rights which
have been duly granted.
6. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; it is accordingly dismissed.
7. The statutory deposit of ` 25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant
Insurance Company.
8. Pending Applications also stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JULY 17, 2012
vk
