Supreme Court Judgment Based on the policy’s “Limitation as to Use” clause, the Supreme Court ruled that an insurance company cannot deny liability for a utility vehicle registered and permitted as a “contract carriage” to carry passengers. The clause applies only to goods carriages, and the insurer, having issued the policy with full knowledge of the vehicle’s registration and permit, is bound to indemnify the owner for third-party claims. The “pay and recover” order was set aside.
Facts Of The Case:
Procedural History:
The case commenced with the filing of five claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) by the legal heirs of the deceased. The MATT, after evaluating the evidence, held the driver negligent and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation, rejecting its plea of breach of policy conditions. Aggrieved by this, the Insurance Company filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court, while concurring with the findings on negligence, accepted the insurer’s argument of a policy breach concerning the carriage of passengers. Consequently, it modified the Tribunal’s order and applied the “pay and recover” principle, ordering the insurer to first pay the claimants and then recover the amount from the vehicle owner. It was this order of the High Court that was challenged by the vehicle owner before the Supreme Court, which became the final appellate authority in this matter.
READ ALSO:Proximity Not Proof: Supreme Court on Accident Injury and Death Five Months Later
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several critical observations, fundamentally centering on the classification of the vehicle. It meticulously examined the Certificate of Registration, which categorized the vehicle as a “Utility Van,” and the contract carriage permit, which authorized it to carry passengers. The Court observed that the insurance policy was a “package policy” issued with full knowledge of these documents, explicitly noting a seating capacity of “4+1.” It held that the “Limitation as to Use” clause, which the insurer relied upon, is applicable only to a “goods carriage” and not to a duly registered and permitted utility vehicle, which is designed to carry both passengers and goods. The Court further noted the testimony of the insurer’s own Branch Manager, who admitted that the policy was issued after verifying the vehicle’s records and that a utility van is meant for carrying both goods and passengers. Consequently, the Court found no breach of policy conditions and held the Insurance Company directly and fully liable, setting aside the High Court’s “pay and recover” order.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the vehicle owner, Shyam Lal. It set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court that had ordered the “pay and recover” principle to be applied. The Court restored the original award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, thereby making the Insurance Company directly and fully liable to satisfy the entire compensation amount owed to the claimants. However, with a specific modification for one claim petition (MACT Case No. 134 of 2014), the Court directed the Tribunal to ensure a mandatory one-third deduction for personal expenses from the computed loss of income before the final disbursement of compensation. All pending applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly.
Case Details:
Case Title: Shyam Lal vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others. Citation: 2025 INSC 1078 Appeal Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 5177-81 of 2022 Date of Judgement: September 04, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice N. V. Anjaria
Download The Judgement Here