Mact-whether thief is the agent of owner of stolen vehicle?
Rajat sahotra
(Querist) 30 November 2013
This query is : Resolved
The owner of vehicle lodged FIR qua theft of vehicle.
Thief caused accident with the stolen vehicle and killed someone.
In claim petition under MV Act thief was ex parte.
Insurance Co say that there was breach of policy as the thief was not having any valid DL as he has failed to come and produce any DL- Adverse inference to be drawn to this effect.
More so thief was not an agent of owner who is to be indemnified by insurance.
whether insurance is liable to indemnify for the accident caused by thief and pay compensation?
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 01 December 2013
Yes is the answer, few lines from a recent decided case:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
FAO No. 6616 of 2012 (O&M) February 13, 2013,National Insurance Company Ltd.
Versus Rohit Sharma and others
“the breach must be on the part of the insured. We are in full agreement with that. To hold otherwise would lead to absurd results. Just to take an example, suppose a vehicle is stolen. Whilst it is being driven by the thief there is an accident. The thief is caught and it is ascertained that he had no licence. Can the insurance company disown liability? The answer has to be an emphatic 'No'. To hold otherwise would be to negate the very purpose of compulsory insurance. The injured or relative of person killed in the accident may find that the decree obtained by them is only a paper decree as the owner is a man of straw. The owner himself would be an innocent sufferer. It is for this reason that FAO No. 6616 of 2012 3 the legislature, in its wisdom, has made insurance, atleast third party insurance compulsory. The aim and purpose being that an insurance company would be available to pay.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 01 December 2013
I agree with Rajendra Goyal's very good piece of advise. Nothing more to add.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 01 December 2013
agree with experts.
J K Agrawal
(Expert) 01 December 2013
Thanks for a very Good Citation by Mr Rajendra. I myself personally is of the opinion that 'at least any one should be held liable for damages in case of any accident by any motor vehicle.'
But at the same time there are so many ifs and buts. In following cases, Insurance company held liable up to extent of No Fault Liability only.
Selvarajamani & ors v/s New India Assurance Co Ltd passed by High Court of Madras - 2003 -1 LW822 - by R Jaisimha Babu J Prabha Sridevan J decided by Madras HC on 21-10-2002 LPA 171/1997== 2003 ACJ 1152 Madras
Mariammal and others v M. Ramasubramaniam and others AAO no 1420 of 1996 decided on 25-07-1997, 1999 ACJ 249
"Eshwarappa @ Maheshwarappa and Anr. Vs. C.S. Gurushanthappa and Anr.
2010ACJ2444, AIR2010SC2907, 2010(5)AWC5433(SC), RLW2010(4)SC3186 2011 RAR 9 SC
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, Civil Appeal No. 7049 of 2002, Decided On: 18.08.2010
"
"Rani Devi@ Usha Rani & Ors v/s Devilal & Ors - SB civil Misc Appeal No.131 of 1991 decided on 01/nov/2007 By Rajasthan High Court ACTC 2008 (1) page no.129
"
