2007 (12) TMI 546 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Liability for compensation when a car is requisitioned by the State for election duty.
2. Interpretation of the term "owner" u/s 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. Applicability of insurance policy terms during requisition.

Summary:

1. Liability for Compensation:
The primary issue was whether the State or the registered owner of a vehicle requisitioned for election duty is liable to pay compensation for an accident. The Supreme Court concluded that the State is liable to pay compensation, not the registered owner, as the vehicle was under the State's control during requisition.

2. Interpretation of "Owner" u/s 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
The Court examined the definition of "owner" under the 1988 Act, noting that the registered owner loses control over the vehicle during requisition. The Court emphasized that the statutory definitions should be understood from a common-sense perspective when the context makes strict application impractical.

3. Applicability of Insurance Policy Terms:
The insurance policy in question limited the vehicle's use to private purposes. The Court held that since the vehicle was under State control during requisition, the insurance company was not liable. The Court referenced previous judgments, including *Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Kailash Nath Kothari* and *Guru Govekar v. Miss Filomena F. Lobo*, to support its decision.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that the State is liable for compensation, not the registered owner or the insurance company. The appeal was allowed with no costs.