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

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court clarified on how to determine if an allegation of fraud falls under “Fraud Exception” to Arbitrability

In AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. vs HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Bombay High Court in a dispute between HSBC and Avitel India. HSBC had alleged that the Appellants had committed fraud by siphoning off the funds provided by them. As the agreement entered into by HSBC and the Appellants contained arbitration clause, HSBC approached the Singapore Arbitration Centre and the arbitration committee so formed executed award in favour of HSBC who filed application before the Bombay High Court for execution of the award. The Appellants contended objected to the award on various grounds and further argued that as fraud has been alleged, the dispute cannot be arbitrated.  The Supreme Court has held that “serious allegations of fraud” as a ground for exemption from arbitral proceedings arise only if either o...
Post a Comment
Read more