Allowed

National Insurance Company v. Surjeet Singh and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Nov 2023CMA/151/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the insurer's appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award that had favored the claimants. The Court set aside the compensation awarded to the claimants against the insurance company, holding that the policy had been validly cancelled due to the dishonour of the premium cheque, and liability lies with the vehicle owner.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award fixing liability on the insurance company is set aside. The company is exonerated from liability and the vehicle owner is directed to pay the compensation.

National Insurance Company Vs Surjeet Singh and Ors. — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 151/2002

¶3

National Insurance Company Limited, Branch officer, Faridkot (Punjab).

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Surjeet Singh son of Shri Arjun Singh

¶7

Hardeep Kaur wife of Surjeet Singh Both by caste Majabi sikh, resident of 8 P.S.D. Rawal Mandi, Tehsil Gharsana, Distt. Ganganagar.

¶8

(Claimants)

¶9

Dharmpal son of Shri Lal Chand Ji, by caste Khatri, resident of Bagha Purana, P.S. Bagha Purana, Teshil Moga, Distt. Faridkot (Punjab).

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Sanjeev Johari, Sr. Adv. Assisted
	by Mr. Subhankar Johari and Mr. Lalit
	Parihar
For Respondent(s)	: None Present

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

¶13

Judgment

¶14

03/11/2023

¶15

The challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated 8.8.2001 passed in M.A.C. Case No.3/1996 on the file of learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, wherein and whereby the claim for the compensation was partly allowed and both the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle were ordered to pay the compensation of Rs.16,312/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till date of realization.

¶16

Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is at the instance of the Insurance Company.

¶17

The contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the policy/cover-note was issued by the Insurance Company on 4.3.1994 basing on the Cheque bearing No.398045 date 4.3.1994 issued by the State Bank of India of Rs. 5,579/-. According to him, the policy/cover-note was issued covering the liability of the owner w.e.f. 4.3.1994 to 3.3.1995 but the policy/cover-note was cancelled after the Insurance Company did not receive the premium amount due to the dishonour of cheque by the bank. The information of this fact was intimated vide memo dated 21.3.1994 and the cancellation notice was also issued on 16.4.1994, but the same was returned unserved. Whereas, the accident occurred on 11.12.1994, much after the cancellation of policy/cover note was made. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

¶18

None appeared for the claimant and the owner of the vehicle despite service of notice.

¶19

The findings of the tribunal shows that the cheque was dishonored and the premium was not paid to the Insurance Company, and the dishonor of the cheque was intimated by cancelling the policy/cover-note issued by the Insurance company under Exhibit D-3 and D-4 and this fact was also noted by the Tribunal. There is no counter-evidence from the owner of the vehicle to show that further premium was paid to the Insurance Company so that the policy/cover-note issued earlier was

¶20

continued. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 11.12.1994, which is after the policy/cover-note was cancelled. The Tribunal went wrong in holding that even though the policy/cover-note was cancelled for non-payment of premium, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Since the contract itself is cancelled, therefore, there is no question for the Tribunal in fixing the liability on the Insurance Company.

¶21

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award fixing liability on the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the awarded compensation, is set aside. The Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability and the owner shall pay the compensation. The amount already paid in pursuance of interim direction shall be recovered from the owner of the vehicle. If the amount is not paid to the claimants, the appellant is entitled to get back such amount.

¶22

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J

¶23

34-mSingh/ Hanuman/-

National Insurance Company v. Surjeet Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Company v. Surjeet Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Singh and Ors. Vs Babu Giri and Ors.

Rajan and Ors. Vs Prahalad Singh

Shanta Devi Vs R.S.R.T.C.