Skip to main content

Insurance Company Can't Avoid Liability If Offending Vehicle Is Stolen & Unauthorisedly Driven By Someone Else

In UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD vs SMT ANITA DEVI AND ORS, appeal was filed before Delhi High Court against the order of the Tribunal allowing compensation to the owner of the insured vehicle. The appellant submitted that since the vehicle was stolen and driver was a professional thief there was no liability on the insurance company to pay the amount.

The question that arose for consideration is as to whether the insurance company is absolved of the liability to pay the amount in a case where the vehicle is stolen and unauthorisedly being driven by somebody else.

Judgment

In the instant case, Tribunal has found that the vehicle was stolen and there was no willful breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the insured.

The Supreme Court of India in United India Insurance Company vs. Lehru and Ors, 2003(3) SCC 338 has held that in order to avoid the liability, the insurer must establish that there was a willful breach on the part of the insured.

The Delhi High Court was in agreement with the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in Sri Sathish Kini vs. Smt. Jnaneshwari wherein, in similar circumstances, the Court has held that the judgment in Lehru (Supra) is complete answer to the contention of the insurance company and the insurance company may have a claim for contribution from the driver.

The Court also disagreed with the judgment of the Madras High Court in New India Assurance Co Ltd vs. Selvarajamani & Ors, 1998 ACJ 547 as the judgment does not consider the proposition as laid down by the Supreme Court in Lehru (supra) as to whether there is a willful breach on the part of the insured or not so as to entitle the insurer to avoid the liability.

Furthermore, if the proposition of the insurance company was accepted, it would militate against the very concept of a beneficial legislation for the victims of an accident. If such a finding were to be returned then the effect would be that even though a vehicle is insured but is stolen, not only would the insurance company be entitled to avoid its liability but the owner of the vehicle who has insured his vehicle against theft and accident would be saddled with a liability for no fault of his. Alternatively, the claimants would be left without any remedy to seek compensation.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more