Case Study on Manjeet Singh vs National

Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr (2005)

S SAI PRASANNA
BBA – 5TH SEM
200409120060
LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS
 CASE DETAILS

Manjeet Singh vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr (2005)

• Manjeet Singh- a truck driver , Appellant
• National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr , Respondent

2
 FACTS OF THE CASE

⊡ The case involved the appellant’s hiring purchase of a secondhand vehicle. The
respondent’s insurance company supplied vehicle insurance. On one of his
journeys, a passenger requested that he pull over and give him a lift. As soon as
he came to a halt, the passenger attacked the driver and took the vehicle with
him. A police report was filed, and the responding financing business was
contacted with.
⊡ However, the firm denied the claim for reimbursement, alleging a breach of the
insurance policy’s conditions. He sued the District Consumer Disputes Forum, the
State Commission, and the National Commission for compensation. Each judge
rejected the cases. Finally, he approached the Supreme Court.

3
 ISSUE AND ARGUMENTS

Respondants argued that the insurance company was not obligated to pay the appellants for
the damages caused by the truck theft.

The insurance company maintained its defense that the driver of the car broke the provisions
of the policy by providing a ride to the passengers; as a result, there was a breach of policy
and the insurance company was not accountable. This argument was deemed acceptable by
the District Forum.

The appellants’ appeal was denied by the state commission, and the national commission
denied their revision.

4
 JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court held that the appellant was not at all in fault. It can be
considered as a breach of the policy, but not a fundamental breach to bring the
insurance policy to an end and terminate the insurance policy. The two - judge
bench of Supreme Court directed the respondent insurance company to pay 75%
of the insured amount along with 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing the
claim. The court also directed the insurance company to pay sum of Rs. 1, 00, 000
as compensation.

5
 CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court did not find any fault in the conduct of the appellant. They
Supreme Court also established a principle that there might be a minor policy
breach, but to terminate a policy and terminate the insurance coverage, the
breach must be significant. The theory of foreseeability of events was also
introduced by the court.

6
THANK YOU
S Sai Prasanna
BBA 5TH –SEM
LEGAL ASPECTS OF
BUSINESS
PRESENTING TO
DR.SUSANTA KUMAR
MISHRA
7