Skip to main content

Insurance - Mere overloading no bar to claim damages

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 49-50 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 37534-37535 of 2013)

Decided On: 07.01.2016

Appellants: Lakhmi Chand
Vs.
Respondent: Reliance General Insurance

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
T.S. Thakur, C.J.I. and V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Munawwar Naseem, Adv.

For Respondents/Defendant: Garvesh Kabra, Adv.

Subject: Consumer

Subject: Insurance

Catch Words

Mentioned IN

Acts/Rules/Orders:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 149(2), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 163A, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 166; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 279, Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 304A, Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 337, Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 338, Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 427

Cases Referred:
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pravinbhai D. Prajapati IV 2010 CPJ 315 (NC); Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. MANU/SC/0814/2010MANU/SC/0814/2010 : (2010) 10 SCC 567; B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Officer, Hassan MANU/SC/0509/1996MANU/SC/0509/1996 : (1996) 4 SCC 647; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors. MANU/SC/0021/2004MANU/SC/0021/2004 : (2004) 3 SCC 297; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal MANU/SC/7265/2007MANU/SC/7265/2007 : (2007) 5 SCC 428

Subject Category:
MATTERS RELATING TO CONSUMER PROTECTION - SLPs RELATING TO CONSUMER PROTECTION

Disposition:
Appeal Allowed

Industry: Insurance

JUDGMENT

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order dated 26.04.2013 in Revision Petition No. 2032 of 2012 and order dated 23.07.2013 in Review Petition No. 253 of 2013 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "National Commission"), whereby the petitions challenging the order dated 29.02.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission were dismissed.

The Supreme Court has held that the mere fact of carrying more passengers than the permitted seating capacity in a goods vehicle by the insured person did not amount to a fundamental breach of the terms of the policy and the insurance company would still be liable to pay damages. In this case, Lakshmi Chand vs Reliance General Insurance, six passengers were travelling in a goods vehicle whereas only one along with the driver was allowed. It met with an accident caused by the rash driving of another vehicle. The owner of the first vehicle demanded money to repair the vehicle. The insurer denied it on the ground that the vehicle had violated the policy conditions. The Haryana and National Consumer Commissions accepted the view of the insurance company. Reversing their rulings, the Supreme Court stated that the burden to prove breach of condition was on the insurance company and in this case, it had not proved that the accident occurred due to overloading.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Sadhana s2 June 2020 at 17:43

    I liked the way you explained the subject. Really, your blog has a lot of stuff. Thank you for sharing such valuable information with us. We also provide such information to Audience. You can also check our blog at once for more information.

    SBI Cards IPO

    Burger King

    Reliance General Insurance

    Upcoming IPOs

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen
21 comments
Read more

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le
1 comment
Read more

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a
10 comments
Read more