The High Court allowed the insurer's appeal, holding it is not liable to pay compensation after an award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal because the policy was issued post-accident due to employee fraud.
Insurance company held not liable to pay compensation; liability remains with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
FAO No.970 of 1991
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.970 of 1991 (O&M) Date of decision 2 .2.2012.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
...... Appellant.
versus
Harvinder Singh Jaggi & others
...... Respondents.
CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI
Present : Mr. L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, for the appellant. Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent(s).
K.C.PURI . J
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has directed the present
appeal against the award dated 1.5.1991 passed by Shri S.S.Sullar, learned
FAO No.970 of 1991
2
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon vide which the claimant has been awarded Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization.
FAO No.970 of 1991
3
the insurance policy by fraud, misrepresentation and active concealment of relevant facts. Respondent No.2 had deliberately withheld the fact that the offending truck sought to be inured had already been involved in a road accident and as such there was no contract between the insured and the insurer at the time of the accident. Objection regarding mala fide and maintainability of the petition have also been taken. However, the answering respondent in the alternative alleged that if it is found that the offending truck was being driven by respondent No.1 then he was driving it without the valid driving licence and he was not driving the vehicle in the course of his employment with respondent No.1. Denying other averments, respondent No.3 prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
framed :-
FAO No.970 of 1991
4
award dated 1.5.1991 to the claimant as mentioned above.
FAO No.970 of 1991
5
February 2nd , 2012 sv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation when the insurance policy was issued after the accident due to an employee's dishonesty.
Whether the insurance company is estopped from denying liability despite the accidental issuance of a cover note post-accident.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. versus Sunita Rathi and othersReferred¶37
1998 (1) PLR 195.
M/s National insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt.Jijubhai Nathuji Dabhi and othersReferred¶37
1997(2) PLR 703
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Satbir and othersReferred¶37
2009(3) page 65
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Sita Bai and othersReferred¶37
2000 ACJ page 40.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Harvinder Singh Jaggi
K.C. Puri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
