Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Monday, 10 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2018-05-17 dismissed

Amrit Paul Singh & Anr vs TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors

Bench: 2 — Dipak Misra

In Brief

A truck involved in a fatal accident on 19 February 2013 lacked a valid transport permit (issued only on 27 February 2013). The claimants sued for compensation. The insurer opposed, arguing the vehicle had no permit under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and High Court found the vehicle was operated without a permit, a fundamental statutory breach, and directed the insurer to pay compensation with recovery rights against the owner and driver. The Supreme Court held that absence of a valid permit is a categorical, documentable statutory infraction distinct from and more serious than driver licensing issues. The insurer must pay compensation to third parties; however, it can recover the amount from the owner and driver. The appeal was dismissed.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Motor Vehicles Act Motor Insurance Third-Party Liability Insurance Contract Statutory Compliance Vehicle Permits Pay and Recover Principle

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login