Allowed

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Sijo

Kerala HC1 Dec 2021MACA/625/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Motor Accident Claims Appeal contested the Tribunal's award on liability for a claim arising after an insurance policy was cancelled due to cheque dishonour. The Court upheld the appellant insurer's contention that the policy was invalid after cancellation intimation.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal's award directing the insurer to deposit the amount and recover from the insured is set aside and modified to permit the insurer to realise the awarded amount from respondents.

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Sijo — Insurance | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1 S T DAY OF DECEMBER 2021/10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

MACA NO. 625 OF 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 392/2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,THODUPUZHA

¶7

APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶8

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. METRO PALACE, GROUND FLOOR, OPP.NORTH RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY AUTHORISED OFFICER

¶9

BY ADV SRI.VPK.PANICKER

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 &2 AND PETITIONER:

¶11

1 SIJO S/O.OUSEPH, CHETTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUNDANMUDY P.O., VANNAPPURAM - 685582. 2 SREEDEV SASIDHARAN S/O.SASIDHARAN KALLUVETTUMKUZHI HOUSE, VANNAPPURAM P.O., THODUPUZHA - 685582. 3 PAPPACHAN @ C.V.JOSEPH S/O.VARKEY, CHIRAPARAMIL HOUSE, MULLANKULLY BHAGOM, KALIYAR KARA, VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK - 685582. BY ADVS. SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY SRI.MATHEW JOHN K

¶12

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.09.2021, THE COURT ON 01.12.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

M.A.C.A. No.625 of 2015

¶14

¶15

T.R. RAVI, J.

¶16

M.A.C.A. No.625 of 2015

¶17

Dated this the 1^st day of December, 2021

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company contending that the insurer cannot be made liable for payment of the compensation since there was no valid policy.

¶20

2 . Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent.

¶21

3 . The contention of the appellant is that Ext.B1 policy had been cancelled by Ext.B6 letter. Even though the policy was issued to be valid from 10.08.2006 to 9.8.2007 on the basis of Ext.B2 cheque dated 9.8.2006 tendered by the insured, the cheque was dishonoured and intimation was given to the Insurance Company by the Banker. The Insurance Company had therefore issued registered notice to the insured regarding the dishonour of cheque

¶22

and seeking remittance of the amount for issuing further policy. The Insurance Company had cancelled the policy through Ext.B5 and sent Ext.B6 intimation to the Regional Transport Officer, Kannur regarding cancellation of the policy. After noticing the contention, the Tribunal found that the accident happened after the

¶23

M.A.C.A. No.625 of 2015

¶24

¶25

dishonour of the cheque and cancellation of the policy and hence the Insurance Company will deposit the amount and will be entitled to reimbursement of the amount from the insured.

¶26

4 . The counsel for the appellant relied on the decision in Deddappa v. National Insurance Co.Ltd. reported in [2018 (1) KLT 296 SC] , where the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that if the contract of insurance has been cancelled and all concerned have been intimated thereabout, the Insurance Company would not be liable to satisfy the claim. It can be seen from paragraph 28 of the judgment that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed pay and recovery in that case by exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. A Full Bench of this Court in the decision in Prasanna B. v. Kabeer P.K.& Anr. reported in [2018 (5) KHC 454] has held that once intimation about cancellation of the policy has been sent by registered post, the burden is on the insured to rebut the presumption by conclusive evidence that he has not really received the letter. However, in the case on hand, there is no contention that such an intimation was not received. In the above circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the award of the Tribunal to the extent it directs the appellant to deposit the amount and

¶27

M.A.C.A. No.625 of 2015

¶28

¶29

recover the same from the 2 nd respondent is set aside. The award

¶30

is modified by permitting the 3 rd respondent to realise the amount

¶31

awarded by the Tribunal from respondents 1 and 2.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

T.R. RAVI JUDGE

¶34

dsn

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Sijo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Sijo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vimal Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

V.P. George Vs V.J. Easow

The New India Ssurance Company Ltd. Vs Thomas Jose Titus (Minor)

Sobin Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Sobin

Darious Dcruz Vs Ajith Bhaskar