Supreme Court: Individual in Whose Name Vehicle Registered On Date Of Accident to Be Treated As Owner

Must Read

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector &...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court,...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first...

Follow us

The present case arises out of a special leave petition of 2016. A Division Bench of Justice R Bhanumati and Indira Banerjee presided over the matter.

Brief Facts of the Case 

This appeal is against an order passed by the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi on 23.02.2015. This dispute arose out of the issue of an insurance claim made by Surendra Kumar Bhiwale. Mr Bhiwale, the petitioner, was the owner of an Ashok Leyland 2214 Truck.

On 11.11.2011, the said lorry, which was loaded with Ammonia Nitrate at Raipur met with an accident on its way. This accident took place on 13.11.2011 at 1.45 am near Bhakuwa Toil Police Station, Gumla in Jharkhand. The driver was trying to save a cow that had come in its way and meanwhile, he lost control over the truck. The truck fell into a river by the side of the road. The accident resulted in the extensive damage of the truck. 

Three days later on 16.11.2011, the accident was reported. And on 25.11.2011, the petitioner lodged a claim with the insurer, New India Assurance, through one Mohammad Iliyas Ansari. The insurance company repudiated the claim on the grounds that the appellant sold the truck to Mr Ansari. The petitioner approached the District Forum. It was because of the action of the insurance company, the District Forum allowed the complaint of the appellant and directed the Insurance Company to pay the claimed amount. 

The Insurance Company then approached the State Commission, which then dismissed the case. They further challenged this before the National Commission. The National Commission had allowed a revision petition and set aside the orders passed by the lower courts. 

Arguments by the Petitioner

The petitioner contended that though there was a sale agreement with Mr Ansari, there was no transfer of ownership of the vehicle. Further, the petitioner paid all the instalments towards the loan. He also submitted that the buyer had not paid him the full consideration for the said truck, even as late as on 13. 11. 2011, when the accident occurred.

Also, the vehicle is still registered under his name. He also held the permit to operate it. 

Arguments by the Respondent

The insurer issued a cause letter dated 22.03.2012 to the petitioner. He questioned the insurance claim, considering that he had already sold the vehicle. The respondents believe that they have no liability to the vehicle as he already sold it. 

Court’s Observation

The Court observed that the National Commission overlooked the definition of ‘owner’ in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Further, they completely ignored the findings of the District Forum and State Commission. 

In Section 2(30) ‘owner’ has been defined to mean “a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered. And, where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement”.

The Court in this regard said: 

“It would also be pertinent to note the difference between the definition of owner in Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the definition of owner in Section 2(19) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which has been replaced by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Under the old Act ‘owner’ meant the person in possession of a motor vehicle. The definition has undergone a change. The legislature has changed the definition of ‘owner’ to mean the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands”.

The Court also questioned the fact as to why the appellant would bear all the risks of the vehicle for over three years when it has already been sold. Thus, the Court has observed that the petitioner was the owner of the truck. Considering the precedent cases, the Court gave its final verdict. 

Court’s Order

The Court allowed the appeal. The Court believed Mr. Bhiwale to be the owner of the truck. New India Assurance could not avoid the claim on the grounds of transferability of ownership. It further directed the insurance company to pay the amount within six weeks of the order.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector & Tahsildar issued a show-cause notice...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -