Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident: Ruling in Surendra Kumar Bhilawe vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.

The case of Surendra Kumar Bhilawe vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. revolves around an appeal regarding the liability of the insurance company to cover the damage sustained by a truck that was involved in an accident. The truck was insured under Policy Number 45030031110100001693, but the insurer rejected the claim on the grounds that the appellant had sold the truck to another individual before the accident took place. The case explores the validity of the sale and the legal ownership of the truck at the time of the accident, as well as the insurer’s obligation to honor the insurance claim.

The appellant, Surendra Kumar Bhilawe, was the registered owner of an Ashok Leyland 2214 truck, which was involved in an accident on 13.11.2011, while en route from Raipur to Dhanbad. The truck, loaded with Ammonia Nitrate, was driven by Rajendra Singh, the driver employed by the appellant. The truck met with an accident in Jharkhand and sustained extensive damage. The appellant filed a claim for compensation under the policy, but the insurer raised objections based on the allegation that the truck had been sold to Mohammad Iliyas Ansari in 2008, which would have invalidated the appellant’s claim for reimbursement.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Surendra Kumar Bhilawe, had purchased the truck with a loan from ICICI Bank and had a hypothecation agreement in place. The truck was registered in the appellant’s name, and he continued to make the loan payments even after entering into a sale agreement with Mohammad Iliyas Ansari on 11.04.2008. Despite this agreement, the appellant maintained ownership of the vehicle, as evidenced by continued payments on the loan and insurance premiums, which were paid in his name.

After the accident in November 2011, the insurer appointed a surveyor to assess the damage, who valued the loss at Rs. 4,93,500 after deducting salvage value. However, the insurer issued a show-cause notice to the appellant, challenging the claim based on the alleged sale of the truck in 2008. The appellant maintained that although a sale agreement had been signed, the transfer of ownership was not complete, as ICICI Bank had not issued a ‘No Objection’ certificate for the sale, and the truck was still registered in his name. Furthermore, the appellant had continued to pay the loan installments and the insurance premium for the vehicle, thereby retaining ownership.

The dispute led to the appellant filing a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (District Forum), which ruled in his favor, ordering the insurer to pay Rs. 4,93,500 along with interest and compensation for mental agony. The insurer appealed the decision before the State Commission, which upheld the District Forum’s order. The insurer then filed a revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission), which reversed the earlier decisions and dismissed the appellant’s complaint.

Legal Provisions and Key Issues

This case primarily involves the interpretation of the following legal provisions:

Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: This section governs the requirement for third-party insurance for vehicles and the liability of insurers in case of accidents.
Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: This section deals with the transfer of insurance policies when the ownership of the vehicle is transferred, and the requirements for notifying the insurer of such transfers.
Sale of Goods Act, 1930: The application of this Act is discussed in relation to the transfer of ownership of the vehicle and the rights of the purchaser in the event of a dispute regarding the sale.

The core issue before the Court was whether the truck had been validly transferred to Mohammad Iliyas Ansari before the accident, and whether the appellant, as the registered owner, was still entitled to file an insurance claim.

Arguments of the Petitioner

The petitioner, Surendra Kumar Bhilawe, made the following arguments:

The appellant was the registered owner of the truck at the time of the accident, as it was still in his name, and he had not completed the sale transaction with Mohammad Iliyas Ansari due to outstanding payments to ICICI Bank.
Despite the sale agreement, the appellant continued to make loan repayments and pay the insurance premiums, demonstrating his continued ownership and interest in the vehicle.
The insurer failed to provide sufficient evidence that the truck was transferred to Mohammad Iliyas Ansari, and the appellant was therefore entitled to the insurance claim as the legitimate owner.
The appellant did not transfer ownership to Ansari as ICICI Bank had not issued a No Objection Certificate, and the registration of the truck had not been changed to Ansari’s name.

Arguments of the Respondent

The respondent, New India Assurance Company Ltd., argued the following points:

The appellant had entered into a sale agreement with Mohammad Iliyas Ansari in 2008, which transferred the ownership of the truck to him. The appellant’s claim was therefore invalid as he was no longer the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident.
The delay in filing the FIR and notifying the insurer of the accident further invalidated the appellant’s claim, as the insurance policy requires prompt reporting of incidents.
The insurance company acted in good faith by issuing a show-cause notice to the appellant, as it was reasonable to question the validity of the claim given the circumstances surrounding the sale agreement and the delay in reporting the accident.

Judgment of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court examined the arguments presented by both parties and made the following key observations:

The Court noted that the appellant was the registered owner of the truck at the time of the accident, and that ownership had not been legally transferred to Mohammad Iliyas Ansari, as ICICI Bank had not issued a No Objection Certificate and the registration had not been changed.
The Court emphasized that even though a sale agreement had been executed, the ownership transfer was contingent upon the payment of the outstanding loan to the bank, and no formal transfer of ownership had occurred.
The Court also considered the appellant’s continued payment of the loan and insurance premiums, which demonstrated his ongoing ownership and interest in the vehicle.
The Court rejected the argument that the insurer could avoid liability based on the purported sale agreement, noting that the sale was incomplete and the appellant remained the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident.
The Court held that the appellant was entitled to the insurance claim, as the truck was insured in his name, and he continued to fulfill the obligations of ownership.

The Court restored the decision of the District Forum, directing the insurer to pay Rs. 4,93,500 along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim till the date of payment. The Court also awarded a composite sum of Rs. 1,00,000 for compensation due to the mental agony caused to the appellant and Rs. 2,000 towards the cost of litigation.

Impact of the Judgment

This judgment has significant implications for insurance claims and property ownership disputes:

The judgment clarifies that ownership in the context of motor vehicle insurance is determined by the registered owner, and that a sale agreement alone does not transfer ownership unless all legal formalities, including obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the financier and changing the registration, are completed.
The ruling also emphasizes that insurers cannot evade their liability based on the incomplete transfer of ownership when the insured continues to meet the obligations of ownership, such as paying loan installments and premiums.
This case reinforces the need for prompt reporting of accidents and the timely submission of claims to avoid unnecessary disputes between insurers and policyholders.

Conclusion

The judgment in Surendra Kumar Bhilawe vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. is an important ruling in the area of motor vehicle insurance and ownership disputes. The Court upheld the rights of the insured and reaffirmed the importance of legal ownership for insurance claims. This case serves as a precedent for future disputes involving the transfer of ownership and the responsibility of insurers to honor claims made by the registered owners of vehicles.

Petitioner Name: Surendra Kumar Bhilawe.
Respondent Name: The New India Assurance Company Ltd..
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice Indira Banerjee.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 18-06-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Surendra Kumar Bhila vs The New India Assura Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 18-06-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Insurance Settlements
See all petitions in Commercial Insurance Disputes
See all petitions in Motor Insurance Settlements
See all petitions in Life Insurance Claims
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Judgment by Indira Banerjee
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments June 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Insurance Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Insurance Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Insurance Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Insurance Cases Category