Allowed

The United India India Insurance Co.Ltd v. Ramesh

Kerala HC20 Jun 2018MACA/506/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award where insurer claimed no liability due to dishonoured premium cheque and policy cancellation. Court held no valid policy existed at the time of accident as cancellation was validly intimated, exonerating the appellant insurer. Liability shifted to the transferee of the vehicle who was the registered owner at the time of the accident as the transf

What did the court decide?

Appellant insurer exonerated from liability; 2nd transferee respondent held liable to satisfy the tribunal award.

The United India India Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Ramesh — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

MACA.No. 506 of 2014

¶6

OP(MV) 650/2001 of M.A.C.T., PALAKKAD DATED 12-08-2013

¶7

APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT

¶8

THE UNITED INDIA INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR) SMT.K.S.SANTHI SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT/1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS/SUPP.4TH RESPONDENT

¶11

RAMESH S/O.GANGADHARAN, VALLANKKAD HOUSE, KAVILPAD POST, PALAKKAD 678 017.

¶12

K.BALASUBRAMANIAN S/O.PARUKUTTY AMMA, H.NO.8/434, KELATH HOUSE, P.O KAILEKULANGARA, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD 678 008.

¶13

SHAMBUKUMAR S/O.KESAVAN NAIR, SREE KESAVAN VEEDU, AKATHETHARA POST, MALAMPUZHA ROAD, PALAKKAD 678 651.

¶14

MOHAMMED, S/O.KUNHAYAN, CHALAMKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, POST PUTHOOR, KODUVALLY, CALICUT 673 582.

¶15

R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH R4 BY ADV. SMT.M.MANJU R1 BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

A.M.BABU, J.

¶18

- - - - M.A.C.A.506 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated : 20^th June, 2018

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

1.The parties are referred to as they are shown in the memorandum of appeal.

¶22

The accident was on 25.2.2001. The 1^st respondent sustained injuries in the accident. He was riding a motorbike. A bus which came from the opposite direction hit against the motorbike. The bus was driven by the 3^rd respondent. His rash and negligent driving caused the accident. The above are facts either admitted or proved.

¶23

Heard Smt.K.S.Shanthi, the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.U.Balagangadharan, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and Sri.R.Sudhish, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent.

¶24

MACA.506/2014

¶25

¶26

The tribunal awarded Rs 2,93,574/- as compensation to the 1^st respondent. The tribunal directed the appellant to honour the award and deposit the amount of compensation. The appellant appeals contending that there was no existing policy at the time of the accident. The contention is that the cheque issued by the 4^th respondent towards premium met dishonour and the factum of dishonour was duly intimated to all concerned including the 4^th respondent. The tribunal did not accept the contention of the appellant that it intimated the cancellation of the policy to the 4^th respondent. The said finding of the tribunal is assailed by the appellant.

¶27

Admittedly the policy was issued on receipt of a cheque issued by the 4^th respondent. A covernote was issued covering the period between 31.3.2000 and 30.3.2001. The accident occurred during the said period on 25.2.2001. But the cheque met dishonour on 6.4.2000. The

¶28

MACA.506/2014

¶29

¶30

dishonour of the cheque is evidenced by Ext B4 memo of dishonour. The factum of dishonour of the cheque was not disputed by any of the parties. The appellant contended that it cancelled the policy and the cancellation was duly intimated to the 4^th respondent as well as the regional transport officer concerned. Ext B6 is the copy of the letter issued to the 4^th respondent by the appellant intimating the dishonour of the cheque as well as the cancellation of the policy. Ext B6 is dated 7.6.2000. The accident occurred thereafter. Ext B5 is the copy of the intimation given to the regional transport officer. Exts B7 and B7(a) are the postal acknowledgment cards. Ext B7 pertains to Ext B6. The tribunal did not accept the evidence adduced on the side of the appellant that the cancellation of the policy was duly intimated to the 4^th respondent. One of the reasons stated by the tribunal for rejecting the contention of the appellant was that the signature on Ext B7 postal

¶31

MACA.506/2014

¶32

¶33

acknowledgment card purporting to be that of the 4^th respondent differed from his signature on Ext B2 proposal form. The tribunal found so despite the fact that nobody disputed the signature on Ext B7. When a registered postal article is delivered and the signature of a person is taken on the postal acknowledgment card, it should be taken that the same was signed either by the addressee or his authorised representative. Therefore the tribunal was not justified in unnecessarily suspecting the service of Ext B6 intimation. Another reason stated by the tribunal to reject the contention of the appellant was that the seal of the appellant was affixed where the addressee should sign. That was obviously a mistake. I am satisfied from the evidence that the cheque issued by the 4^th respondent met dishonour, that the policy was therefore cancelled by the appellant and that the dishonour of the cheque and cancellation of the policy were duly intimated by the

¶34

¶35

MACA.506/2014

¶36

appellant to the 4^th respondent. Therefore there was no valid policy at the time of the accident. The insurer is not liable if cancellation of policy is intimated to the insured before the accident on account of dishonour of the cheque. It has been held so by the apex court in Deddappa v. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd (AIR 2008 SC 767). The appellant is therefore entitled to be exonerated from any liability.

¶37

The next question is as to who shall shoulder the liability. The 4^th respondent raised a contention before the tribunal that he sold the vehicle to the 2^nd respondent much before the date of accident. The 2^nd respondent chose not to appear before the tribunal. Before this court also the 2^nd respondent did not appear. The 4^th respondent filed I.A.2045/2018 under order XLI rule 27 of CPC to receive a document. The document sought to be received in appeal is a very important document. I

¶38

MACA.506/2014

¶39

¶40

therefore allow I.A.2045/2018. The same is marked as Ext B8. The same is the registration particulars of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. It shows that the 4^th respondent transferred the vehicle to the 2^nd respondent. Ext B8 shows further that the transfer became effective on 20.5.2000. It was thereafter the accident. Hence the entire liability should be shouldered by the 2^nd respondent.

¶41

The appeal is allowed as follows. The appellant stands exonerated from any liability to compensate the 1^st respondent. The 2^nd respondent shall be the person liable to satisfy the award passed by the tribunal. The award can be executed against him.

Sd/-

A.M.BABU Judge

Mrcs/20.6

/True copy/

P.S.To Judge

The United India India Insurance Co.Ltd v. Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The United India India Insurance Co.Ltd v. Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shoukathali Vs C.K.Ramankutty

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mariyamma Daniel

Manzoorali Vs P.v.Aboobacker

Ayoob Vs Siyarali

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs R Saradamani

Lathef V.K. Alias Abdul Latheef Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.