SURENDRA KUMAR BHILAWE v. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ss. 2(19), 2(30), 50, 146, 157; ch. XI
- Indian Contract Act, 1872 ss. 10, 23, 24
- Sale of Goods Act ss. 19, 20
- Sale of Goods Act, 1930 ss. 19, 20
- Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Key paragraphs
- Para 1313. The impugned order of the National Commission under appeal is set aside and the order of the District Forum is restored. The Insurer shall pay to the Appellant a sum of Rs.4,93,500/- as directed by the District Forum with interest as enhanced by this…
Judgment
#10. The FIR was lodged within three days of the accident. In the case of a major accident of the kind as in this case, where the said truck had turned turtle and fallen into a river, slight delay if any, on the part of the traumatized driver to lodge an FIR, cannot 42 A B C D E F G H SURENDRA KUMAR BHILAWE v. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED defeat the legitimate claim of the Insured. In case of a serious accident in course of inter-state transportation of goods, delay of 20 days in lodging a claim is also no delay at all. It is nobody’s case that the claim application filed by the Appellant was time barred. Moreover, the Insurer had, in any case, duly sent its Surveyors/Assessors to assess the loss. The claim of the Appellant could not have, in this case, been resisted, either on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR, or on the ground of delay in lodging an Accident Information Report, or on the ground of delay in making a claim. [Para 51][62-B-C]
#11. The National Commission erred in law in reversing the concurrent factual findings of the District Forum and the State Commission ignoring vital admitted facts including registration of the said truck being in the name of the Appellant, even as on the date of the accident, over three years after the alleged transfer, payment by the Appellant of the premium for the Insurance Policy, issuance of Insurance Policy in the name of the Appellant, permit in the name of the Appellant even after three years and seven months, absence of ‘No Objection’ from the financier bank etc. and also overlooking the definition of owner in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as also other relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder, including in particular the transferability of a policy of insurance under Section 157. [Para 53][62-E-G]
#12. There was no material evidence at all before the National Commission, on the basis of which the National Commission could have reversed the concurrent factual findings of the District Forum and the State Commission which unerringly led to the conclusion that ownership of the said truck never stood transferred to the transferee. [Para 29][52-D-E]
#13. The impugned order of the National Commission under appeal is set aside and the order of the District Forum is restored. The Insurer shall pay to the Appellant a sum of Rs.4,93,500/- as directed by the District Forum with interest as enhanced by this Court to 9% per annum from the date of claim till the date of payment. The sum of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the District Forum 43 A B C D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R. towards compensation for mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- awarded towards the cost of litigation are grossly inadequate. The Insurer shall pay a composite sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Appellant towards costs and compensation for the agony caused to the Appellant by withholding his legitimate dues. [Para 57][63-D-F]
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.