Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

JAGDISH KUMAR SOOD versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS

Decided
6 March 2018
Judges listed
DIPAK MISRA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 17 · 2018 INSC 209
Also cited as
  • (2018) 3 SCC 697 (8 citing judgments)
  • AIR 2018 SC 2906 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal allowed a claim for compensation filed by the third respondent. The claim arose from the death of the husband of the claimant on 4 January 2009 as a result of an accident caused by a collision with an offending truck. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs 4,08,000 together with interest at 6 per cent per annum. In an appeal filed by the third respondent the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs 8,04,000. Interest @ 7.5 per cent per annum was awarded on the enhanced compensation.

p. 18, margin D

2

The Tribunal absolved the insurer on the ground that the vehicle involved in the accident was a Light Goods Vehicle. The driver had a licence to drive the Light Motor Vehicle. The Tribunal held that in the absence of a specific authorization to drive a transport vehicle, the liability could not be fastened on the insurer. The Tribunal directed the insurer to pay in the first instance and allowed it to recover the compensation from the driver and the owner. The present appeal has been filed by the owner.

p. 18, margin F

3

The High Court, while enhancing the compensation did not interfere with the order of the Tribunal absolving the insurer.

p. 18, margin G

4

The issue which arises before the Court is not res integra and is covered by a judgment of a three Judges of this Court in Mukund Dewangan v Oriental Insurance Company Limited in which it has been inter aliaheldas follows: “60.1. “Light motor vehicle” as defined in Section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Section 2(21) read with Sections 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act 54 of 1994.” (Id at page 709) “60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a roadroller, “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg or a motor car or tractor or roadroller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form.” (Id at page 710)

p. 19, margin A

5

Having regard to the above position, the Civil Appeal will have to be allowed.

p. 19, margin E

6

The appeal is allowed, the order of the Tribunal absolving the insurer shall accordingly stand set aside. The liability shall jointly and severally be fastened on the insurer, in addition to the owner and driver. There shall be no order as to costs.

p. 19, margin E