Madhya Pradesh High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Hukum Singh And Ors. on 31 October, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1995ACJ1190
JUDGMENT T.S. Doabia, J.
1. "What the legislature has given, the court cannot deprive of by way of an exercise in interpretation when the view which renders the provision potent is equally plausible as the one which renders the provision impotent." This is what was said by the Supreme Court in the case of Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan 1987 ACJ 411 (SC).
2. The present case is still on a better footing. The parties compromised in a lok adalat. The spirit behind quick settlement is sought to be nullified by the present litigation initiated by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The brief facts out of which this litigation arises may be noticed as under.
3. There was an accident involving a truck No. DIG 4129. This accident took place on 31.5.1993. This matter was settled without any condition in the lok adalat held on 9.1.1994. The insurance company agreed to pay Rs. 37,000/- to the claimants. It is this settlement arrived at in the lok adalat which was challenged before the VIIIth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior. The Tribunal did not agree with the contention raised by the insurance company. This is how the present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. The argument raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that compromise was arrived at by relying upon a forged driving licence. According to the learned counsel, it is a material concealment of fact which would vitiate the compromise.
5. I am unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even if the factual statement made by the insurance company is to be believed it would only tantamount to that that the vehicle in question was being driven by a person without a licence. Such a situation was noticed in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan 1987 ACJ 411 (SC) and it was held that merely because the vehicle was being driven by a non-licensed person would be no ground not to compensate the victim. It was observed:
To construe the provision differently would be to rewrite the provision by engrafting a rider to the effect that in the event of the motor vehicle happening to be driven by an unlicensed person, regardless of the circumstances in which such a contingency occurs, the insurer will not be liable under the contract of insurance. It needs to be emphasised that it is not the contract of insurance which is interpreted, it is the statutory provision defining the conditions of exemption which is being interpreted. These must, therefore, be interpreted in the spirit in which the same have been enacted accompanied by an anxiety to ensure that the protection is not nullified by the backward looking interpretation which serves to defeat the provision rather than to fulfil its life-aim. To do otherwise would amount to nullifying the benevolent provision by reading it with a non-benevolent eye and with a mind not tuned to the purpose and philosophy of the legislation without being informed of the true goals sought to be achieved.
6. In this view of the matter, there is absolutely no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner. This petition is dismissed with costs. Costs Rs. 300/-.