HDFC BANK LTD Vs. KUMARI RESHMA
LAWS(SC)-2014-12-2
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADHYA PRADESH)
Decided on
December 01,2014
HDFC BANK LTD
Appellant
VERSUS
Kumari Reshma
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
MOHAN BENEFIT PVT LIMITED VS. KACHRAJI RAYMALJI [REFERRED TO]RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. KAILASH NATH KOTHARI [REFERRED TO]
T V JOSE VS. CHACKO P M ALIAS THANKACHAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH MEHTA VS. SANWAL CHAND SINGHVI [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH K TRIPATHI VS. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER L I C [REFERRED TO]
PANDEY AND CO BUILDERS PVT LTD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. DEEPA DEVI [REFERRED TO]
GODAVARI FINANCE CO VS. DEGALA SATYANARAYANAMMA [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPA ALIAS LEELA VS. SHAKUNTALA [REFERRED TO]
UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. KULSUM [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF OFFICER BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPALITY VS. BACHUBAHI ARJANBHAI [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. DURDADSHYA KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
PURNYA KALA DEVI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
KRISHNA AND OTHERS VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-10-182] [REFERRED TO]UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. HARDEV SINGH AND OTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2017-11-244] [REFERRED TO]
ROOP SINGH VS. DHARAM DASS [LAWS(HPH)-2017-5-20] [REFERRED TO]
INDIWAR PARIJAT VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2023-12-170] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS. JAGBIR SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2015-4-40] [REFERRED TO]
CHAMAN LAL VS. MURAT RAM [LAWS(HPH)-2020-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
JANG BAHADUR DHAWAN VS. KRISHAN KUMAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2018-3-175] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH CHAND DAGA VS. SAVETA SHARMA & ORS [LAWS(SC)-2018-12-72] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGER VS. GOURABAI [LAWS(KAR)-2022-6-993] [REFERRED TO]
HDFC BANK LTD VS. DHIRUBHAI BHIKHABHAI SOLANKI [LAWS(GJH)-2016-1-83] [REFERRED TO]
RABINDRA NATH ROY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-8-65] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR KESHARWANI VS. KU SATAYAWATI KASHYAP [LAWS(CHH)-2018-1-94] [REFERRED TO]
SHAHABUDDIN USMAN KHAN VS. ANTONIO ROQUE PAULO ALVITO BAPTISTA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-7-62] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2018-6-381] [REFERRED TO]
LAKHWINDER SINGH VS. SEEMA DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-2016-10-57] [REFERRED TO]
AMRIT PAUL SINGH & ANR VS. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD [LAWS(SC)-2018-5-51] [REFERRED TO]
V.K. ABDUL BASHEER VS. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. [LAWS(NCD)-2023-2-17] [REFERRED TO]
KULWANT SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. SUNITA DEVI AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-12-117] [REFERRED TO]
DAL CHAND SHARMA VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-6-16] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGER, ICICI BANK LTD. VS. G. MANGULU PATRO [LAWS(ORI)-2022-8-56] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN AND OTHERS VS. MUKESH KUMAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-829] [REFERRED]
RADHEY SHYAM GUPTA VS. ARCHANA & ORS [LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-428] [REFERRED]
TARUN KUMAR DAS VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-7-53] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI RANDIP SINGH VS. IKRAM KHAN [LAWS(HPH)-2017-3-28] [REFERRED TO]
MEVA LAL VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-11-109] [REFERRED TO]
SAURABH KHARE VS. BAUBI DEVI AND 3 ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-4-461] [REFERRED TO]
APNA FINANCE (IDEA) LTD. VS. UPPALAPATI RAMANA AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2016-4-66] [REFERRED TO]
BAJAJ AUTO FINANCE LIMITED VS. RAGHUNATH SON OF SH. VIJAYLAL KUMAWAT [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-10-132] [REFERRED TO]
SURAT PEOPLE S CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD & ANR VS. AMBIKA MEDICAL STORES & 4 ORS [LAWS(NCD)-2015-7-127] [REFERRED TO]
GOPICHAND JAISWAL VS. NINDRA BAI [LAWS(CHH)-2020-8-69] [REFERRED TO]
N S PALANI VS. SULACHANA [LAWS(MAD)-2017-10-289] [REFERRED TO]
ZAFFAR MANSOOR KHAN VS. RAJU, & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-10-106] [REFERRED TO]
AVTAR SINGH CHHABRA VS. ARUN LAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2020-11-41] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C. VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2015-10-86] [REFERRED TO]
YUGAL KISHORE SHARMA & OTHERS VS. SUKH RAI SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-12-84] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. LH OF DECD VITTHALBHAI POOJABHAI GOHIL [LAWS(GJH)-2023-3-633] [REFERRED TO]
THE M.D. AND SELF INSURANCE AND ORS. VS. DURAGAPPA BHIMAPPA MADAR AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2016-1-243] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR VS. RAKESH ALIAS MINTU ALIAS BINTU (P&H) [LAWS(P&H)-2016-1-651] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA BHARTI VS. NAROTTAM MISHRA AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2016-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
DIPIKA RAJESHKUMAR PATEL VS. PRAVINSINH R. VAGHELA [LAWS(GJH)-2022-9-1805] [REFERRED TO]
SBS FINANCERS BATHINDA VS. NARINDER JEET KAUR AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2016-2-276] [REFERRED TO]
M/S EICHER LIMITED VS. BENI MICHAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-7-220] [REFERRED TO]
A P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. HAZEERA BEGUM AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2015-12-77] [REFERRED]
CANARA BANK VS. RADHA [LAWS(MAD)-2019-9-170] [REFERRED TO]
TILAK RAJ SOOD VS. RAJMATI & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-10-128] [REFERRED TO]
BALDEV SINGH VS. HUSANDIP SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-12-245] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL KUMAR CHATURVEDI VS. BELA BAI [LAWS(MPH)-2022-8-110] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. PRAKASH CHAND AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2017-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
M/S MAGMA LEASING LIMITED VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-218] [REFERRED TO]
THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS. SHRI RINGAK MANIK HALAM [LAWS(TRIP)-2016-7-21] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions.
(2.)In these appeals, by special leave, the assail is to the judgment and order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of judicature of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in Misc. Appeal No. 2261 of 2005 preferred by the Centurion Bank Limited, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant herein, and Misc. Appeal No. 3243 of 2005 preferred by the claimants, the 1st respondent herein, whereby the High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein and allowed the appeal of the claimants by enhancing the awarded sum to Rs. 3 lacs opining that the said amount would be just and equitable compensation for the injuries sustained by her. The High Court also dismissed the review petition no. 619/2013 vide order dated 13.05.2014 preferred by the appellant herein. Be it stated, the Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore had awarded Rs.1,75,000/- in Claim Case No.181/2003.
(3.)Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts which are requisite to be stated are that on 20.12.2002 about 12.30 p.m. the claimant was going on a scooter bearing registration No. MP09Q92 from Shastri Bridge to Yashwant Square and at that time the Motor Cycle belonging to 2nd respondent and driven by the respondent No.3 herein, in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the scooter as a consequence of which she sustained a fracture in the right hand superacondylar fracture and humerus bone fracture and certain other injuries. She availed treatment at various hospitals as she had to undergo an operation and thereafter advised to take physiotherapy regularly. Keeping in view, the injuries suffered and the amount she had spent in availing the treatment, she filed a claim petition putting forth the claim for Rs.4,50,000/-. The tribunal as stated earlier awarded a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- with 6% interest and opined that all the non-applicants to the claim petition were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. It is apt to state here the stand and stance put forth by the predecessor-in-interest the appellant bank that it had only advanced a loan and the hypothecation agreement was executed on 1.11.2002 by it. As per the terms of the agreement, the owner of the vehicle was responsible to insure the vehicle at his own costs. Reliance was placed on Clause 16 and 17 of the loan agreement which stipulated that the bank was required to get the vehicle insured if the borrower failed to or neglected to get the vehicle insured. The accident as stated earlier had taken place on 20.12.2002 and the vehicle was insured by the owner on 16.1.2003. It was further put forth by the bank that the owner deposited Rs.6,444/- with the dealer of the motor cycle i.e. Patwa Abhikaran Pvt. Ltd., whereas it was required to pay Rs.9,444/-. Despite the same, he obtained the possession of the vehicle on the same day itself which was not permissible.
(2.)In these appeals, by special leave, the assail is to the judgment and order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of judicature of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in Misc. Appeal No. 2261 of 2005 preferred by the Centurion Bank Limited, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant herein, and Misc. Appeal No. 3243 of 2005 preferred by the claimants, the 1st respondent herein, whereby the High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant herein and allowed the appeal of the claimants by enhancing the awarded sum to Rs. 3 lacs opining that the said amount would be just and equitable compensation for the injuries sustained by her. The High Court also dismissed the review petition no. 619/2013 vide order dated 13.05.2014 preferred by the appellant herein. Be it stated, the Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore had awarded Rs.1,75,000/- in Claim Case No.181/2003.
(3.)Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts which are requisite to be stated are that on 20.12.2002 about 12.30 p.m. the claimant was going on a scooter bearing registration No. MP09Q92 from Shastri Bridge to Yashwant Square and at that time the Motor Cycle belonging to 2nd respondent and driven by the respondent No.3 herein, in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the scooter as a consequence of which she sustained a fracture in the right hand superacondylar fracture and humerus bone fracture and certain other injuries. She availed treatment at various hospitals as she had to undergo an operation and thereafter advised to take physiotherapy regularly. Keeping in view, the injuries suffered and the amount she had spent in availing the treatment, she filed a claim petition putting forth the claim for Rs.4,50,000/-. The tribunal as stated earlier awarded a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- with 6% interest and opined that all the non-applicants to the claim petition were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. It is apt to state here the stand and stance put forth by the predecessor-in-interest the appellant bank that it had only advanced a loan and the hypothecation agreement was executed on 1.11.2002 by it. As per the terms of the agreement, the owner of the vehicle was responsible to insure the vehicle at his own costs. Reliance was placed on Clause 16 and 17 of the loan agreement which stipulated that the bank was required to get the vehicle insured if the borrower failed to or neglected to get the vehicle insured. The accident as stated earlier had taken place on 20.12.2002 and the vehicle was insured by the owner on 16.1.2003. It was further put forth by the bank that the owner deposited Rs.6,444/- with the dealer of the motor cycle i.e. Patwa Abhikaran Pvt. Ltd., whereas it was required to pay Rs.9,444/-. Despite the same, he obtained the possession of the vehicle on the same day itself which was not permissible.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.