Partly allowed

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Raju

Madras HC20 Jan 2022CMA/366/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against an award where the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal directed an insurance company to pay and recover compensation. The court set aside the portion of the award requiring insurance payment because the policy was cancelled prior to the accident.

What did the court decide?

The portion of the award directing the Insurance Company to pay and recover the amount is set aside; respondent owner is liable for the entire award.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Raju — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 20.01.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶5

CMA.No.366 of 2020 and CMP.No.3422 of 2020

¶6

The New India Assurance Company Limited, No.45, Moore Street, 3^rd Party Cell, Chennai - 1

¶7

...Appellant/2^nd Respondent

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.Raju ...1^st Respondent/1^st Respondent 2.Sathya ...2^nd Respondent/Petitioner

¶10

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the MV Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.561 of 2014 dated 30.09.2019 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / II Additional District Court, Poonamallee.

¶11

For Appellant : Ms.C.Sangamithirai

¶12

For Respondents: Mr.K.Varadhakamaraj for R2

¶13

J U D G M E N T

¶14

The only ground on which, the Insurance Company challenges the award is that the Tribunal ought not to have granted an order for pay and recovery when the policy was cancelled by the Insurance Company on the ground that the cheque issued for the premium was dishonoured even on 21.04.2014, prior to the accident.

¶15

2.It is not in dispute that the cheque given by the 1^st respondent was dishonoured and the Insurance Company had informed the 1^st respondent as well as the RTO of the cancellation of the policy by the registered letters dated 21.04.2014. Once the said cancellation is admitted, the Tribunal ought not to have directed the Insurance Company to pay the

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

compensatin and recover the same from the owner. The question of pay and recovery will arise only if there is a policy and there is violation of any of the policy conditions.

¶18

3.If the very policy has been cancelled, there is no

¶19

question of Insurance Company being directed to pay with liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. Hence, that portion of the award of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly, set aside. This civil miscellaneous appeal is therefore, partly allowed. The Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability to pay and the liability to satisfy the entire award will be on the 1^st respondent / owner of the vehicle. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

kkn

¶25

To:

¶26

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II-Additional District Judge, Poonamallee.

¶27

Copy To

¶28

The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.

¶29

+1cc to Mrs.C.Sangamithira, Advocate, S.R.No.3274

¶30

+1cc to Mr.K.Varadha Kamaraj, Advocate, S.R.No.3314

¶31

CMA.No.366 of 2020 and CMP.No.3422 of 2020

¶32

AK-II(CO) RGA(08/04/2022)

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Praveen Kumar A.S. Vs Sumiko Sherlin

Tasmac Ltd., Vs K. Venkataraj

K.Ramasamy Vs N.Shankar

V. Neelavathi Vs National Highways Authority of India

S.Valliyammal @ S.Rathika Vs M.Sankaralingam @ M.Shankar

Mythili Vs R.Mohanraj