{"id":186152,"date":"2007-11-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-prabhu-lal-on-30-november-2007"},"modified":"2017-01-30T22:00:03","modified_gmt":"2017-01-30T16:30:03","slug":"new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-prabhu-lal-on-30-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-prabhu-lal-on-30-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Prabhu Lal on 30 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Prabhu Lal on 30 November, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: C Thakker<\/div>\n
Bench: C.K. Thakker, Tarun Chatterjee<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5539 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPRABHU LAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 30\/11\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nC.K. THAKKER & TARUN CHATTERJEE\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5539 OF 2007
\n          ARISING OUT OF
\nSPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 7370 OF 2004
\nWITH
\nC.A. NO. 5540 OF 2007 @ SLP(C) NO. 17794 OF 2004
\nC.A. NO. 5541 OF 2007 @ SLP(C) NO.  7618 OF 2005<\/p>\n
C.K. THAKKER, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\t\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tIn all these appeals, a common
\nquestion of law has been raised by the parties.
\nIt is, therefore, appropriate if we deal with
\nand decide all the appeals by a common
\njudgment. In all the three appeals, the claim
\nof the claimant has been upheld finally by the
\nNational Consumer Disputes Redressal
\nCommission, New Delhi (‘National Commission’
\nfor short) which has been challenged by the
\nInsurance Company in this Court.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tTo appreciate the controversy, it
\nwould be appropriate if we narrate the facts in
\nthe first case i.e. New India Assurance Co.
\nLtd. v. Prabhu Lal.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tA complaint was filed by the
\ncomplainant Prabhu Lal under Section 12 of the
\nConsumer Protection Act, 1986 before the
\nDistrict Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
\nKota (Rajasthan) (‘District Forum’ for short)
\nclaiming compensation from the respondent
\nInsurance Company as also from Tata Finance
\nLimited, Jaipur. The case of the complainant
\nwas that he purchased a vehicleTata 709 with
\nRegistration No. RJ-20G-2828 from Tata Finance
\nLimited, Jaipur. The insurance was taken from
\nNew India Assurance Company effective from
\nOctober 17, 1997 to October 16, 1998. Premium
\namount of Rs.8235\/- was duly paid. It was the
\ncase of the complainant that on April 17, 1998,
\nthe vehicle of the complainant was being driven
\nby Mohd. Julfikar to Indore for getting Chilly.
\nAt about 4.30 a.m. in the early morning, the
\ndriver of Roadways Bus No. MP 13-C-3935 drove
\nthe bus with very high speed in rash and
\nnegligent manner which resulted in an accident
\nat Yashwant Nagar. Due to said accident, Ram
\nNarainbrother of the complainant who was
\nsitting with Mohd. Julfikar, sustained
\ninjuries. Mohd. Julfikar immediately ran away
\nleaving the vehicle but as Ram Narain received
\nserious injuries, he could not come out of the
\nvehicle. The complainant lodged First
\nInformation Report (FIR) No. 131 of 1998 with
\nthe Manpur Police Station, Yashwant Nagar,
\nDistrict Indore under Sections 279 and 337 of
\nthe Indian Penal Code (IPC) against driver Kalu
\nof M.P. Roadways Bus. Vehicle of the
\ncomplainant was then inspected by Tatas,
\nestimate was prepared and claim was submitted
\nin the prescribed form by the complainant to
\nthe Insurance Company on June 12, 1998. The
\namount of the claim was, however, not paid to
\nthe complainant. The complainant, therefore,
\nmoved the District Forum praying for an award
\nof Rs.4,70,000\/- towards the claim of vehicle,
\nRs.15,000\/- towards mental agony, Rs.5,000\/-
\ntowards driving charges of the vehicle from
\nIndore to Kota and Rs.25,000\/- for survey fee.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tThe Insurance Company filed its reply
\nrefuting the claim of the complainant.
\nAccording to the Company, it had not committed
\nany deficiency in rendering ‘service’. It was
\nalso the case of the Company that it had
\nfulfilled all contractual obligations as to
\nclaim. The Company informed the complainant
\nabout its decision on December 21, 1999 stating
\nthat the claim was not allowable and the amount
\nwas not payable. The Insurance Company,
\ntherefore, prayed for the dismissal of the
\ncomplaint.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tAccording to the District Forum, the
\nmain question was whether the Insurance Company
\nwas deficient in rendering service and wrongly
\ndisallowed insurance claim of the complainant.
\nThe Forum considered the question and heard the
\nparties. According the complainant, at the time
\nof accident, vehicle was driven by Mohd.
\nJulfikar who was having a licence to drive
\nLight Motor Vehicle (LMV) as also Heavy Motor
\nVehicle (HMV). In spite of it, the Insurance
\nCompany disallowed the insurance claim of the
\ncomplainant on the ground that the driver was
\nnot having valid driving licence to drive the
\nvehicle in question. It was also the contention
\nof the complainant that certain documents
\nproduced by the Insurance Company were not
\ngenuine. The complainant was not an educated
\nman and he knew only how to sign. If the
\nofficials of Insurance Company had obtained
\nsignatures of the complainant on certain
\ndocuments without reading over to him and
\nmaking him properly understood, the complainant
\nshould not suffer. According to the
\ncomplainant, Insurance Company wrongly presumed
\nand proceeded on the basis that the vehicle was
\ndriven by Ram Narain at the time of accident,
\nwho was having a valid driving licence to drive
\nonly Light Motor Vehicle and negatived the
\nclaim. It was, therefore, prayed that an award
\nbe passed in favour of the complainant.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tThe case of the Insurance Company, on
\nthe other hand, was that the vehicle in
\nquestion, at the time of accident, was driven
\nby Ram Narain, brother of the complainant.
\nAdmittedly, Ram Narain was possessing licence
\nto drive Light Motor Vehicle and not Heavy
\nMotor Vehicle. He, therefore, could not have
\ndriven Transport Vehicle in absence of
\nnecessary endorsement as required and the
\nInsurance Company could not be held liable. In
\nthis connection, Insurance Company relied on
\nthe permit issued by Transport Authority, the
\nForm submitted by the complainant, licence
\nissued and other documents. The Insurance
\nCompany also relied upon FIR filed at Police
\nStation, Manpur, wherein it was stated that the
\nvehicle was driven by Ram Narain. Moreover,
\nwhen the officers of the Insurance Company
\napproached the complainant, they were informed
\nby the complainant that the vehicle was driven
\nby Ram Narain. As an after thought, only with a
\nview to get the amount of compensation, it was
\nasserted and a case had been put forward before
\nthe Consumer Forum that the vehicle was driven
\nby Mohd. Julfikar. It was contended that the
\ncomplainant realized belatedly that if true
\nfacts would be placed before the Forum, in view
\nof legal position, he would not be able to get
\nany amount from the Insurance Company. It was,
\ntherefore, asserted that Mohd. Julfikar was
\ndriving the vehicle but it was not true. The
\nInsurance Company, hence, submitted that there
\nwas no deficiency in rendering service by the
\nCompany and the claim was liable to be
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tThe Tata Finance Limited, Jaipur in
\nits reply stated that the complainant had
\npurchased the vehicle on the basis of Hire
\nPurchase Agreement and the amount was to be
\npaid in instalments. At the time of incident,
\nRs.3,65,026\/- were due and payable to the
\nCompany. Until the full amount was paid, the
\nFinancer was to remain owner of the vehicle. It
\nwas also stated that though Tata Finance
\nCompany requested the Insurance Company several
\ntimes to make payment of the balance hire
\npurchase amount, it was not done.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tThe District Forum, after considering
\nthe rival contentions of the parties and
\nreferring to the case law on the point,
\nparticularly a decision of this Court in Ashok
\nGangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co.
\nLtd.,<\/a> (1999) 6 SCC 620, held that the
\ncomplainant was not entitled to compensation.
\nAccording to the District Forum, in Ashok
\nGangadhar, this Court held that if the driver
\nwas having effective driving licence to ply
\nLight Motor Vehicle (LMV), he could not have
\nplied Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV) or Transport
\nVehicle. The District Forum observed that from
\nthe evidence on record, it was proved that at
\nthe time of accident, Ram Narain was plying the
\nvehicle in question and not Mohd. Julfikar as
\nasserted. Ram Narain was having valid and
\neffective driving licence to ply Light Motor
\nVehicle and as such he could not have plied the
\ntransport vehicle. The claim was, therefore,
\nnot tenable and accordingly the complaint was
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tBeing aggrieved by the order passed by
\nthe District Forum, the claimant approached the
\nConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission of
\nRajasthan, Jaipur (‘State Commission’ for
\nshort). The State Commission held that the
\nprinciple laid down in Ashok Gangadhar would
\napply.  But according to the State Commission,
\nthe District Forum was not right in dismissing
\nthe claim observing that the said decision was
\nagainst the complainant. In fact, the point was
\ndecided in favour of the complainant and the
\ncomplainant-claimant would be entitled to the
\nbenefit of the judgment and the Insurance
\nCompany must be held liable. Accordingly, the
\nappeal was allowed. The order passed by the
\nDistrict Forum was set aside and the Insurance
\nCompany was ordered to pay the amount mentioned
\nin the operative part of the judgment along
\nwith interest at the rate of 15% p.a.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tAggrieved Insurance Company approached
\nNational Forum against the order passed by the
\nState Commission but the National Commission
\nalso dismissed the Revision and confirmed the
\norder passed by the State Commission. It is
\nthis order which is challenged in this Court.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tOn April 23, 2004, notice was issued
\nby the Court. It appears that meanwhile in
\nother matters, a similar question came up
\nbefore this Court and hence all the matters
\nwere ordered to be placed for hearing together.\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tWe have heard learned counsel for the
\nparties.\n<\/p>\n
14.\t\tThe learned counsel for the appellant-
\nInsurance Company contended that the State
\nForum as well as National Forum had committed
\nan error of law in holding the appellant-
\nInsurance Company liable and directing it to
\npay compensation. It was submitted that there
\nwas no deficiency on the part of the appellant-
\nCompany in rendering service to the complainant
\nand hence Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to
\nentertain, deal with and decide the dispute. It
\nwas also submitted that it was clearly
\nestablished from the relevant documents on
\nrecord that at the time of accident, Ram Narain
\nwas plying the vehicle and not Mohd. Julfikar.
\nAdmittedly, Ram Narain was having valid driving
\nlicence to ply Light Motor Vehicle. The vehicle
\nin question was a transport vehicle and hence
\nit could not have been plied by Ram Narain. In
\nabsence of valid licence to drive the said
\nvehicle, the complainant could not claim
\ncompensation from the Insurance Company and no
\ndirection could be issued to the Company to pay
\ncompensation to the complainant. The District
\nForum was, therefore, fully justified in
\ndismissing complaint of the respondent-
\ncomplainant and both, State Commission as well
\nas National Commission  were in error in
\ngranting the prayer of the complainant and the
\norders passed by them are liable to be set
\naside. It was also submitted by the learned
\ncounsel that State Commission as also National
\nCommission, misunderstood Ashok Gangadhar. It
\nis no doubt true that in Ashok Gangadhar, the
\nclaim of the complainant was upheld by this
\nCourt. But it was because the relevant
\ndocumentary evidence was not placed before the
\nAuthorities. This Court, therefore, held that
\nsince material documents were not produced by
\nthe Company, the complainant should not suffer
\nand in absence of such evidence, the Insurance
\nCompany cannot be absolved of liability. But
\nthe ratio laid down in Ashok Gangadhar supports
\nthe case of the Insurance Company that if
\nnecessary documents are on record and they go
\nto show that the licence issued in favour of
\nthe driver to ply a particular type of vehicle,
\nhe could not have plied other vehicle and the
\nInsurance Company could not be held liable if
\nthere was breach of that condition. In the case
\non hand, all the documents were on record,
\ncontention was raised by the Insurance Company
\nfrom the very beginning that the vehicle was a
\ntransport vehicle, which driven by Ram Narain
\nwho was holding licence to ply only Light Motor
\nVehicle.  Hence, he could not have plied the
\nvehicle in question, a finding was recorded in
\nfavour of the Insurance Company by the District
\nForum which had not been disturbed by the State
\nCommission or by the National Commission and
\nhence the complaint ought to have been
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
15.\t\tThe learned counsel for the respondent
\nsubmitted that it was the case of the
\ncomplainant before District Forum that the
\nvehicle was driven by Mohd. Julfikar who
\npossessed valid licence to ply the vehicle but
\nas soon as the accidence took place, he fled
\naway since he was scared that passengers in the
\nbus might not spare him and he might be beaten.
\nAs Ram Narain sustained several injuries, he
\ncould not go away. Unfortunately, the District
\nForum dismissed the complaint which
\nnecessitated challenging the decision and the
\ncomplainant succeeded before the State Forum
\nand National Forum. As to Ashok Gangadhar, the
\ncounsel submitted that the said decision helps
\nthe complainant and both the Commissions were
\nright in following it and in directing the
\nInsurance Company to pay compensation to the
\ncomplainant. He, therefore, submitted that the
\nappeal deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
16.\t \tBefore we deal with contentions raised
\nby the parties on merits, it would be
\nappropriate to examine the relevant provisions
\nof the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter
\nreferred to as ‘the Act’). By the Act of 1988,
\nthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (old Act) had been
\nrepealed. The new Act has been enacted with a
\nview ‘to consolidate and amend the law relating
\nto motor vehicles’. Section 2 is a ‘legislative
\ndictionary’ and defines various terms. Relevant
\nclauses of the said section are Clauses (10),
\n(14), (21), (28) and (47) which define ‘driving
\nlicence’, ‘goods carriage’, ‘light motor
\nvehicle’, ‘motor vehicle’ and ‘transport
\nvehicle’ respectively. They read as under:\n<\/p>\n
2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless
\nthe context otherwise requires,–
\n(10) “driving licence” means the
\nlicence issued by a competent
\nauthority under Chapter II authorising
\nthe person specified therein to drive,
\notherwise than as a learner, a motor
\nvehicle or a motor vehicle of any
\nspecified class or description;
\n(14) “goods carriage” means any motor
\nvehicle constructed or adapted for use
\nsolely for the carriage of goods, or
\nany motor vehicle not so constructed
\nor adapted when used for the carriage
\nof goods;\n<\/p>\n
(21) “light motor vehicle” means a
\ntransport vehicle or omnibus the gross
\nvehicle weight of either of which or a
\nmotor car or tractor or road-roller
\nthe unladen weight of any of which,
\ndoes not exceed 7,500 kilograms;
\n(28) “motor vehicle” or “vehicle”
\nmeans any mechanically propelled
\nvehicle adapted for use upon roads
\nwhether the power of 1 Subs. & ins. by
\nAct. 580 propulsion is transmitted
\nthereto from an external or internal
\nsource and includes a chassis to which
\na body has not been attached and a
\ntrailer; but does not include a
\nvehicle running upon fixed rails or a
\nvehicle of a special type adapted for
\nuse only in a factory or in any other
\nenclosed premises or a vehicle having
\nless than four wheels fitted with
\nengine capacity of not exceeding
\nthirty-five cubic centimetres;
\n(47) “transport vehicle” means a
\npublic service vehicle, a goods
\ncarriage, an educational institution
\nbus or a private service vehicle;\n<\/p>\n
17.\t\tSection 3(1) of the Act requires
\nholding of driving licence which is material
\nand reads thus;\n<\/p>\n
3. Necessity for driving licence.
\n(1) No person shall drive a motor
\nvehicle in any public place unless he
\nholds an effective driving licence
\nissued to him authorising him to drive
\nthe vehicle; and no person shall so
\ndrive a transport vehicle other than a
\nmotor cab hired for his own use or
\nrented under any scheme made under
\nsub- section (2) of section 75 unless
\nhis driving licence specifically
\nentitles him so to do.\n<\/p>\n
  (emphasis supplied)\n<\/p>\n
18.\t\tSection 5 declares that no owner or
\nperson in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause
\nor permit any person which does not satisfy the
\nprovisions of Section 3 to drive the vehicle.
\nSection 10 deals with form and contents of
\nlicences. It enacts that every driving licence
\n(except a driving licence issued under Section
\n18 which provides for driving motor vehicles
\nbelonged to the Central Government) shall be in
\nsuch form and shall contain such information as
\nmay be prescribed by the Central Government. It
\nalso states that a driving licence shall be
\nexpressed as entitling the driver to drive a
\nmotor vehicle of one or more of the types of
\nmotor vehicles specified in sub-section (2).
\nSection 15 provides for ‘renewal of driving
\nlicences’. Section 27 empowers the Central
\nGovernment to make rules in respect of matters
\nenumerated therein. Section 66 prohibits an
\nowner of motor vehicle to use or to permit the
\nuse of motor vehicle as a transport vehicle in
\nany public place save in accordance with the
\nconditions of permit granted by an appropriate
\nauthority. Whereas Section 147 deals with
\nrequirements of policies and limits of
\nliability, Section 149 imposes duty on insurers
\nto satisfy judgments and awards against persons
\ninsured in respect of third party risks.\n<\/p>\n
19.\t\tThe Central Government has framed
\nrules known as the Central Motor Vehicles
\nRules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
\nRules’).\n<\/p>\n
20.\t\tRule 16 of the Rules prescribes the
\nform in which driving licence is issued. The
\nform provides that the holder of a licence can
\ndrive any vehicle of the description mentioned
\ntherein.  Where authorization is granted to
\ndrive transport vehicle, it is expressly so
\nprovided by making an endorsement to that
\neffect.\n<\/p>\n
21.\t\tNow, it is the case of the Insurance
\nCompany that the vehicle of the complainant
\nwhich met with an accident was a ‘transport
\nvehicle’.  It was submitted that the insured
\nvehicle was a ‘goods carriage’ and was thus a
\n‘transport vehicle’.  The vehicle was driven by
\nRam Narain, who was authorized to drive Light
\nMotor Vehicle and not a transport vehicle.
\nSince the driver had no licence to drive
\ntransport vehicle in absence of necessary
\nendorsement in his licence to that effect, he
\ncould not have driven Tata 709 and when that
\nvehicle met with an accident, Insurance Company
\ncould not be made liable to pay compensation.\n<\/p>\n
22.\t\tNow, let us consider both these
\npoints.  As far as vehicle is concerned, it is
\nclear from the record that it was Tata 709,
\nregistration No.RJ-20G-2828.  The permit in
\nrespect of the said vehicle is on record issued
\nby the Transport Authority, Kota.  From the
\nregistration, it is clear that it was
\nregistered as a truck, a goods carrier and was
\ndescribed as public carrier.  Load carrying
\ncapacity was shown to be 4100.00 Kgs.  The
\npermit was valid up to November 11, 2002.\n<\/p>\n
23.\t\tThe District Forum held that the
\ndocuments clearly mentioned that the vehicle
\nwas a ‘goods carriage’ as defined in Section
\n2(14) covered by the category of ‘transport
\nvehicle’ under Section 2(47) of the Act.  The
\nState Commission held that since the gross
\nweight of the vehicle was only 6800 Kgs and did
\nnot exceed permissible limits (7500 Kgs) nor it
\nwas carrying goods at the time of accident, it
\nwas a Light Motor Vehicle.  For coming to that
\nconclusion, the State Commission relied upon
\nAshok Gangadhar.\n<\/p>\n
24.\t\tIn our considered view, the State
\nCommission was wrong in reversing the finding
\nrecorded by the District Forum.  So far as
\nAshok Gangadhar is concerned, we will deal with
\nthe said decision little later but from the
\ndocumentary evidence on record and
\nparticularly, from the permit issued by the
\nTransport Authority, it is amply clear that the
\nvehicle was a ‘goods carrier’ [Section 2(14)].
\nIf it is so, obviously, it was a ‘transport
\nvehicle’ falling under clause (47) of Section 2
\nof the Act.  The District Forum was, therefore,
\nright in considering the question of liability
\nof the Insurance Company on the basis that Tata
\n709 which met with an accident was ‘transport
\nvehicle’.\n<\/p>\n
25.\t\tThe second question is as to who was
\ndriving the vehicle which collided with M.P.
\nRoadways Bus on April 17, 1998.  In this
\nconnection, it may be stated that it was the
\ncase of the complainant that the vehicle (Tata\n<\/p>\n
709) was driven by Mohd. Julfikar to Indore.
\nBecause of rash and negligent driving by Kalu,
\ndriver of other vehicle i.e. M.P. Roadways bus,
\nthere was an accident and Ram Narain, brother
\nof the complainant, sustained serious injuries.
\nMohd. Julfikar was having valid licence to
\ndrive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) as well as
\nHeavy Motor Vehicle (HMV) and hence the
\ncomplainant was entitled to compensation from
\nthe Insurance Company.\n<\/p>\n
26.\t\tThe contention of the Insurance
\nCompany, on the other hand, was that it
\nconducted an inquiry which revealed that at the
\ntime of accident it was not Mohd. Julfikar who
\nwas driving the vehicle, but it was Ram Narain
\nwho was driving it. Ram Narain was having
\nlicence to drive Light Motor Vehicle only and
\nsince the vehicle in question was a transport
\nvehicle, he could not have driven the said
\nvehicle in absence of an endorsement as
\nrequired by law and hence the complainant was
\nnot entitled to any amount from the Insurance
\nCompany and the Insurance Company could not be
\nheld liable.\n<\/p>\n
27.\t\tThe District Forum, as observed
\nearlier, considered the assertion of the
\ncomplainant and the defence of the Insurance
\nCompany as to who was driving Tata 709 and on
\nthe basis of overall evidence adduced before
\nit, held that it was Ram Narain who was driving
\nthe vehicle that met with an accident. The said
\nRam Narain was not having licence to drive
\ntransport vehicle and as such, Insurance
\nCompany was not liable. The District Forum
\nnoted that in the FIR lodged in respect of the
\naccident, Ram Narain was shown to be the driver
\nof the vehicle. Not only that but the evidence
\nadduced before the District Forum also went to
\nshow that at the time of accident, Ram Narain
\nwas the driver of the insured vehicle. The
\nargument of the complainant that the officials
\nof the Insurance Company obtained his
\nsignatures on some documents without reading
\nthem over and making the claimant to understand
\nthe contents thereof was negatived. The
\nassertion of the complainant that he was
\n‘illiterate’ and was knowing only how to put
\nhis signature was also not believed by the
\nDistrict Forum. The said finding of fact has
\nnot been set aside either by the State
\nCommission or by the National Commission. Even
\notherwise, from the evidence on record, we are
\nsatisfied that it was Ram Narain who was
\ndriving the vehicle at the time of accident. We
\nhave, therefore, to proceed to consider whether
\nthe complainant was entitled to claim
\ncompensation from the Insurance Company in such
\nan eventuality.\n<\/p>\n
28.\t\tThe argument of the Insurance Company
\nis that at the time of accident, Ram Narain had
\nno valid and effective licence to drive Tata\n<\/p>\n
709. Indisputably, Ram Narain was having a
\nlicence to drive Light Motor Vehicle. The
\nlearned counsel for the Insurance Company,
\nreferring to various provisions of the Act
\nsubmitted that if a person is having licence to
\ndrive Light Motor Vehicle, he cannot drive a
\ntransport vehicle unless his driving licence
\nspecifically entitles him so to do (Section 3).
\nClauses (14), (21), (28) and (47) of Section 2
\nmake it clear that if a vehicle is ‘Light Motor
\nVehicle’, but falls under the category of
\nTransport Vehicle, the driving licence has to
\nbe duly endorsed under Section 3 of the Act. If
\nit is not done, a person holding driving
\nlicence to ply Light Motor Vehicle cannot ply
\ntransport vehicle. It is not in dispute that in
\nthe instant case, Ram Narain was having licence
\nto drive Light Motor Vehicle.  The licence was
\nnot endorsed as required and hence, he could
\nnot have driven Tata 709 in absence of
\nrequisite endorsement and Insurance Company
\ncould not be held liable.\n<\/p>\n
29.\t\tWe find considerable force in the
\nsubmission of the learned counsel for the
\nInsurance Company. We also find that the
\nDistrict Forum considered the question in its
\nproper perspective and held that the vehicle
\ndriven by Ram Narain was covered by the
\ncategory of transport vehicle under Clause (47)
\nof Section 2 of the Act. Section 3, therefore,
\nrequired the driver to have an endorsement
\nwhich would entitle him to ply such vehicle. It
\nis not even the case of the complainant that
\nthere was such endorsement and Ram Narain was
\nallowed to ply transport vehicle. On the
\ncontrary, the case of the complainant was that
\nit was Mohd. Julfikar who was driving the
\nvehicle. To us, therefore, the District Forum
\nwas right in holding that Ram Narain could not
\nhave driven the vehicle in question.\n<\/p>\n
30.\t\tThe learned counsel for the
\ncomplainant, however, heavily relied upon Ashok
\nGangadhar. In that case, the appellant was the
\nowner of a truck, Light Motor Vehicle, which
\nwas insured with the respondent Insurance
\nCompany. The vehicle met with an accident and a
\nclaim was lodged by the complainant before the
\nConsumer Commission. It was contended by the
\nInsurance Company that the truck was a goods
\ncarriage or a transport vehicle and since the
\ndriver of the truck was holding a driving
\nlicence issued in Form No.6 to drive light
\nmotor vehicle only, he was not authorized to
\ndrive transport vehicle as there was no
\nendorsement on his driving licence authorizing
\nhim to drive such transport vehicle. The
\naggrieved complainant approached this Court.
\nAllowing the appeal and setting aside the order
\npassed by the Commission, this Court held that
\nthe driver of the vehicle was holding a valid
\ndriving licence for driving a Light Motor
\nVehicle and there was no material on record to
\nshow that he was disqualified from holding an
\neffective valid licence at the time of
\naccident. In view of those facts, the Court
\nheld that the policy did not insist on the
\ndriver to have a licence to drive a transport
\nvehicle by obtaining a specific endorsement.
\nConsidering the definition of ‘Light Motor
\nVehicle’ as given in Clause (21) of Section 2
\nof the Act, this Court held that such Light
\nMotor Vehicle (LMV) cannot always mean a light
\ngoods carriage. A Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) can
\nbe a non-transport vehicle as well. The Court
\nproceeded to observe that since there was
\nneither a pleading nor a permit produced on
\nrecord, the vehicle remained as a Light Motor
\nVehicle. And though it can be said to have been
\ndesigned to use as a transport vehicle or a
\ngoods carriage, it could not be held on account
\nof statutory prohibition contained in Section
\n66 of the Act to be a transport vehicle. It
\nwas, therefore, held that the Commission was
\nnot right in rejecting the claim of the
\nclaimant.  Accordingly this Court set aside the
\norder passed by the Commission and directed the
\nInsurance Company to pay compensation to the
\ncomplainant.\n<\/p>\n
31.\t\tIt is no doubt true that in Ashok
\nGangadhar, in spite of the fact that the driver
\nwas holding valid driving licence to ply Light
\nMotor Vehicle (LMV), this Court upheld the
\nclaim and ordered the Insurance Company to pay
\ncompensation. But, in our considered opinion,
\nthe learned counsel for the Insurance Company
\nis right in submitting that it was because of
\nthe fact that there was neither pleading nor
\nproof as regards the permit issued by the
\nTransport Authority. In absence of pleading and
\nproof, this Court held that, it could not be
\nsaid that the driver had no valid licence to
\nply the vehicle which met with an accident and
\nhe could not be deprived of the compensation.
\nThis is clear if one reads paragraph 11 of the
\njudgment, which reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
“11. To reiterate, since a vehicle
\ncannot be used as transport vehicle on
\na public road unless there is a permit
\nissued by the Regional Transport
\nAuthority for that purpose, and since
\nin the instant case there is neither a
\npleading to that effect by any party
\nnor is there any permit on record, the
\nvehicle in question would remain a
\nlight motor vehicle. The respondent
\nalso does not say that any permit was
\ngranted to the appellant for plying
\nthe vehicle as a transport vehicle
\nunder Section 66 of the Act, Moreover,
\non the date of accident, the vehicle
\nwas not carrying any goods, and though
\nit could be said to have been designed
\nto be used as a transport vehicle or
\ngoods-carrier, it cannot be so held on
\naccount of the statutory prohibition
\ncontained in Section 66 of the Act”.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t  (emphasis supplied)\n<\/p>\n
32.\t\tIn our judgment, Ashok Gangadhar did
\nnot lay down that the driver holding licence to
\ndrive a Light Motor Vehicle need not have an
\nendorsement to drive transport vehicle and yet
\nhe can drive such vehicle. It was on the
\npeculiar facts of the case, as the Insurance
\nCompany neither pleaded nor proved that the
\nvehicle was transport vehicle by placing on
\nrecord the permit issued by the Transport
\nAuthority that the Insurance Company was held
\nliable.\n<\/p>\n
33.\t\tIn the present case, all the facts
\nwere before the District Forum. It considered
\nthe assertion of the complainant and defence of
\nthe Insurance Company in the light of the
\nrelevant documentary evidence and held that it
\nwas established that the vehicle which met with
\nan accident was a ‘transport vehicle’. Ram
\nNarain was having a licence to drive Light
\nMotor Vehicle only and there was no endorsement
\nas required by Section 3 of the Act read with
\nRule 16 of the Rules and Form No.6. In view of
\nnecessary documents on record, the Insurance
\nCompany was right in submitting that Ashok
\nGangadhar does not apply to the case on hand
\nand the Insurance Company was not liable.\n<\/p>\n
34.\t\tThe matter can be looked from another
\nangle also. Section 14 referred to above,
\nprovides for currency of licence to drive motor
\nvehicles. Sub-section (2) thereof expressly
\nenacts that a driving licence issued or renewed
\nunder the Act shall, “in the case of a licence
\nto drive a transport vehicle, be effective for
\na period of three years”. It also states that
\n“in the case of any other licence, if the
\nperson obtaining the licence, either originally
\nor on renewal thereof, had not attained the age
\nof fifty years on the date of issue or, as the
\ncase may be, renewal thereof, be effective for
\na period of twenty years from the date of such
\nissue or renewal”. It is thus clear that if a
\nlicence is issued or renewed in respect of a
\ntransport vehicle, it can be done only for a
\nperiod of three years. But, in case of any
\nother vehicle, such issuance or renewal can be
\nfor twenty years provided the person in whose
\nfavour licence issued or renewed had not
\nattained the age of 50 years. In the present
\ncase, the licence was renewed on November 17,
\n1995 upto November 16, 2015 i.e. for a period
\nof twenty years. From this fact also, it is
\nclear that the licence was in respect of ‘a
\nmotor vehicle other than the transport
\nvehicle’.\n<\/p>\n
35.\t\tThe learned counsel for the Insurance
\nCompany also referred to a decision of this
\nCourt in National Insurance Company vs. Kusum
\nRai & Ors.,<\/a> (2006) 4 SCC 250, wherein this
\nCourt held that if the vehicle is a taxi which
\nis being driven by a driver holding licence for
\ndriving Light Motor Vehicle only without there
\nbeing any endorsement for driving transport
\nvehicle, the Insurance Company cannot be
\nordered to pay compensation.\n<\/p>\n
36.\t\tWe may also refer to a decision of the
\nHigh Court of Himachal Pradesh in New India
\nAssurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Suraj Prakash &
\nOrs., AIR 2000 HP 91. There the vehicle
\ninvolved in an accident was taxi, a public
\nservice vehicle. But the licence issued in
\nfavour of the driver was to ply light motor
\nvehicle and there was no endorsement to drive
\ntransport vehicle. It was, therefore, held by
\nthe High Court that the Insurance Company
\ncannot be saddled with the liability to pay
\ncompensation to the claimant. There too, the
\nclaimant placed reliance on Ashok Gangadhar.
\nThe Court, however, distinguished it observing
\nthat “there was neither any evidence therein
\nnor was there any claim for insurer that the
\nvehicle concerned therein was having a permit
\nfor goods carriage or that it had a permit or
\nauthorization for plying the vehicle as a
\ntransport vehicle”. In our considered view, the
\nHigh Court was right in taking the above view.\n<\/p>\n
37.\t\tThe learned counsel for the
\ncomplainant invited our attention to certain
\ndecisions of this Court. In Skandia Insurance
\nCo. Ltd. Vs.Kokilaben Chandravadan & Ors.,
\n(1987) 2 SCC 654, it was held that if a truck
\ndriver leaves the truck with engine in motion
\nafter handing over the truck to cleaner who was
\nnot a duly licensed person who drives the truck
\nwhich causes an accident, it cannot be
\ncontended by the Insurance Company that it
\nwould not be liable to pay compensation to a
\nthird party who sustains injury because of the
\naccident.\n<\/p>\n
38.\t\tThe ratio laid down in Skandia
\nInsurance Co. Ltd., in our considered opinion,
\ndoes not apply to the case on hand as it was in
\nrespect of ‘third party’ that the Court held
\nthat the Insurance Company must pay
\ncompensation. This is clear from paragraph 13
\nof the judgment in which the Court stated:
\n“13. In order to divine (sic derive)
\nthe intention of the legislature in
\nthe course of interpretation of the
\nrelevant provisions there can scarcely
\nbe a better test than that of probing
\ninto the motive and philosophy of the
\nrelevant provisions keeping in mind
\nthe goals to be achieved by enacting
\nthe same. Ordinarily it is not the
\nconcern of the legislature whether the
\nowner of the vehicle insures his
\nvehicle or not. If the vehicle is not
\ninsured any legal liability arising on
\naccount of third party risk will have
\nto be borne by the owner of the
\nvehicle. Why then has the legislature
\ninsisted on a person using a motor
\nvehicle in a public place to insure
\nagainst third party risk by enacting
\nSection 94. Surely the obligation has
\nnot been imposed in order to promote
\nthe business of the insurers engaged
\nin the business of automobile
\ninsurance. The provision has been
\ninserted in order to protect the
\nmembers of the Community travelling in
\nvehicles or using the roads from the
\nrisk attendant upon the user of motor
\nvehicles on the roads. The law may
\nprovide for compensation to victims of
\nthe accidents who sustain injuries in
\nthe course of an automobile accident
\nor compensation to the dependents of
\nthe victims in the case of a fatal
\naccident. However, such protection
\nwould remain a protection on paper
\nunless there is a guarantee that the
\ncompensation awarded by the Courts
\nwould be recoverable from the persons
\nheld liable for the consequences of
\nthe accident. A Court can only pass an
\naward or a decree. It cannot ensure
\nthat such an award or decree results
\nin the amount awarded being actually
\nrecovered, from the person held liable
\nwho may not have the resources. The
\nexercise undertaken by the law Courts
\nwould then be an exercise in futility.
\nAnd the outcome of the legal
\nproceedings which by the very nature
\nof things involve the time cost and
\nmoney cost invested from the scarce
\nresources of the Community would make
\na mockery of the injured victim, or
\nthe dependents of the deceased victim
\nof the accident, who themselves are
\nobliged to incur not inconsiderable
\nexpenditure of time, money and energy
\nin litigation. To overcome this ugly
\nsituation the legislature has made it
\nobligatory that no motor vehicle shall
\nbe used unless a third party insurance
\nis in force. To use the vehicle
\nwithout the requisite third party
\ninsurance being in force is a penal
\noffence (Section 94 of the Motor
\nVehicles Act). The legislature was
\nalso faced with another problem. The
\ninsurance policy might provide for
\nliability walled in by conditions
\nwhich may be specified in the contract
\nof policy. In order to make the
\nprotection real, the legislature has
\nalso provided that the judgment
\nobtained shall not be defeated by the
\nincorporation of exclusion clauses
\nother than those authorised by Section
\n96 and by providing that except and
\nsave to the extent permitted by
\nSection 96 it will be the obligation
\nof the Insurance Company to satisfy
\nthe judgment obtained against the
\npersons insured against third party
\nrisks. (vide Section 96). In other
\nwords, the legislature has insisted
\nand made it incumbent on the user of a
\nmotor vehicle to be armed with an
\ninsurance policy covering third party
\nrisks which is in conformity with the
\nprovisions enacted by the legislature.
\nIt is so provided in order to ensure
\nthat the injured victims of automobile
\naccidents or the dependents of the
\nvictims of fatal accidents are really
\ncompensated in terms of money and not
\nin terms of promise. Such a benign
\nprovision enacted by the legislature
\nhaving regard to the fact that in the
\nmodern age the use of motor vehicles
\nnotwithstanding the attendant hazards,
\nhas become an inescapable fact of
\nlife, has to be interpreted in a
\nmeaningful manner which serves rather
\nthan defeats the purpose of the
\nlegislation. The provision has
\ntherefore to be interpreted in the
\ntwilight of the aforesaid
\nperspective”.\n<\/p>\n
39.\t\tSimilar is the reasoning and
\nconclusion in B.V.Nagaraju Vs. M\/s. Oriental
\nInsurance Co. Ltd., (1996) 4 SCC 647. In that
\ncase, there was breach of condition as to carry
\npassengers in a goods vehicle more than the
\nnumber permitted in terms of insurance policy.
\nThe Court there held that the breach of the
\nsaid provision could not be said to be such a
\nfundamental character so as to afford ground to
\nthe insurer to deny indemnification unless
\nthere were some factors which contributed to
\nthe causing of the accident. The Court held
\nthat exclusionary permission in the insurance
\npolicy must be retained so as to serve the main
\npurpose of the policy which was to indemnify
\nthe damage caused to the vehicle.\n<\/p>\n
40.\t\tIn Jitendra Kumar Vs. Oriental
\nInsurance Co. Ltd. & Anr, (2003) 6 SCC 420, the
\nCourt held that if the vehicle was damaged due
\nto accidental fire, the fact that the driver
\nwas not holding valid driving licence at the
\ntime of incident would not empower the
\nInsurance Company to repudiate the claim and it
\ncould not be put forward as a ground to deny
\nthe liability of the Insurance Company that the
\ndriver did not have valid licence at the time
\nof accident in question.\n<\/p>\n
41.\t\tFinally, a reference was made to
\nNational Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh &
\nOrs, (2004) 3 SCC 297. That case also related
\nto third party victims of motor vehicle
\naccidents and to us the ratio in Swaran Singh
\ndoes not carry the case of the claimant
\nfurther.\n<\/p>\n
42.\t\tFor the aforesaid reasons, in our
\nopinion, the conclusion arrived at by the
\nDistrict Forum cannot be said to be faulty and
\nit was right in holding that on the basis of
\nthe evidence adduced by the Insurance Company,
\nthe complainant was not entitled to claim any
\ncompensation from the Insurance Company and
\nInsurance Company cannot be held liable. The
\ndecision could not have been interfered with by
\nthe State Commission or by the National
\nCommission and hence the orders of the State
\nCommission and National Commission are liable
\nto be set aside by restoring the order passed
\nby the District Forum. we do accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
43.\t\tThe appeal is, therefore, allowed. The
\norders passed by the State Commission and
\nNational Commission are set aside and the order
\npassed by the District Forum is restored.\n<\/p>\n
44.\t\tIn the matter of Nasir Ahmed (SLP No.
\n7618 of 2005), the vehicle was a luxury taxi
\npassenger carrying commercial vehicle. There
\nalso the driving licence issued in favour of
\nthe driver was to ply Light Motor Vehicle (LMV)
\nand hence the driver could not have driven the
\nvehicle in question. In that case too, the
\nlicence was renewed for a period of twenty
\nyears i.e. from February 5, 2000 to February 4,
\n2020. Again, there was no endorsement as
\nrequired by Section 3 of the Act. A specific
\nplea was taken by the Insurance Company but the
\nAuthorities held the Insurance Company liable
\nwhich could not have been done. The reasoning
\nand conclusion arrived at by us in the matter
\nof Prabhu Lal (SLP No. 7370 of 2004) would
\napply to the case of Nasir Ahmed. That appeal
\nis, therefore, allowed.\n<\/p>\n
45.\t\tIn Chandra Prakash Saxena (SLP No.
\n17794 of 2004), the vehicle involved in
\naccident was a Jeep Commander made by Mahindra
\n& Mahindra, a passenger carrying commercial
\nvehicle, and in view of the fact that the
\ndriver was holding licence to drive Light Motor
\nVehicle (LMV), he could not have plied the
\nvehicle in question. For the reasons recorded
\nhereinabove in the main matter of Prabhu Lal
\ni.e. SLP(C) No. 7370 of 2004, the Insurance
\nCompany could not have been held liable and
\nthat appeal also deserves to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
46.\t\tFor the foregoing reasons, all the
\nthree appeals are allowed and the orders passed
\nagainst the Insurance Company are set aside
\nholding that the Insurance Company cannot be
\nheld liable.  There shall, however, be no order
\nas to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Prabhu Lal on 30 November, 2007 Author: C Thakker Bench: C.K. Thakker, Tarun Chatterjee CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5539 of 2007 PETITIONER: NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD RESPONDENT: PRABHU LAL DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30\/11\/2007 BENCH: C.K. THAKKER & TARUN CHATTERJEE JUDGMENT: J U D G […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-186152","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNew India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Prabhu Lal on 30 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-prabhu-lal-on-30-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Prabhu Lal on 30 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-prabhu-lal-on-30-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-30T16:30:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"33 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-prabhu-lal-on-30-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-prabhu-lal-on-30-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Prabhu Lal on 30 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-30T16:30:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-prabhu-lal-on-30-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":6668,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-prabhu-lal-on-30-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-prabhu-lal-on-30-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-prabhu-lal-on-30-november-2007\",\"name\":\"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Prabhu Lal on 30 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-30T16:30:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-prabhu-lal-on-30-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-prabhu-lal-on-30-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-prabhu-lal-on-30-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Prabhu Lal on 30 November, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Prabhu Lal on 30 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-prabhu-lal-on-30-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Prabhu Lal on 30 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-prabhu-lal-on-30-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-30T16:30:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"33 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-prabhu-lal-on-30-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-prabhu-lal-on-30-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Prabhu Lal on 30 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-30T16:30:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-prabhu-lal-on-30-november-2007"},"wordCount":6668,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-prabhu-lal-on-30-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-prabhu-lal-on-30-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-prabhu-lal-on-30-november-2007","name":"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Prabhu Lal on 30 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-30T16:30:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-prabhu-lal-on-30-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-prabhu-lal-on-30-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-co-ltd-vs-prabhu-lal-on-30-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Prabhu Lal on 30 November, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186152","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=186152"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186152\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=186152"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=186152"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=186152"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}