Appeals by an insurance company challenging compensation awards where the insurer claimed the insurance policy was not in force due to a dishonoured cheque. The court held the insurer failed to prove prior cancellation notice was served.
Compensation awarded to deceased's dependents in both matters was upheld; appeals dismissed.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA M.A.CMA.Nos.276 OF 2009 AND 762 OF 2016
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Both these appeals are preferred by the New India Assurance Company Limited, respondent No.2 in M.V.O.P.No.25 of 2006 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Warangal, and O.P.No.404 of 2005 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, aggrieved by the orders and decrees, dated 20.02.2008 and 10.12.2008, passed in the said O.Ps., respectively, on the ground that the cheque issued by the owner of lorry that involved in the accident stood dishonoured and therefore, the policy/cover note, as the case may be, was not in existence on the date of accident and hence, the Tribunal went wrong in fixing liability on it.
M.A.CMA.No.276 of 2009 & batch ASN,J
2
M.A.CMA.No.276 of 2009 & batch ASN,J
3
road, crossed the divider and proceeded further towards right side in the direction of the house of the deceased and dashed to a cycle and also the deceased and then hit the compound wall and stopped. In the said process, the boy, Bala Teja, went underneath the bi-cycle and the front wheel of the lorry, and died instantaneously and his father, Kishan, also died in the same accident. The Police, Khajipet, registered a case in Crime No.253/T-479/2005 against the driver of the lorry under Sections 304-A and 337 I.P.C. Thus, the claimants sought the amounts mentioned in the above.
separate counters.
M.A.CMA.No.276 of 2009 & batch ASN,J
4
M.V.O.P.No.25 of 2006:
“1. Whether the accident that occurred on 04.11.2005 was due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No.AAK 5544 resulting in death of the deceased Kishan?
O.P.No.404 of 2005:
“1. Whether the deceased Banoth Teja died in motor vehicle accident, if so, whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of lorry bearing No.AAK 5544?
PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked.
M.A.CMA.No.276 of 2009 & batch ASN,J
5
M.A.CMA.No.276 of 2009 & batch ASN,J
6
Authority prior to the date of accident, but it failed in that endeavour, for the reason that the date of dispatch found by the Tribunal was ‘21.03.2006’, which was about 4 ½ months after the accident. That has been the principal reason, the Tribunal did not accede to the stand taken by the insurer. The Tribunal, placed reliance on New India Assurance Company v. Rula1 rendered by the Honourable Apex Court, wherein it was held that whether the premium was paid or not, is not the concern of the third party, and that the Insurance Company is liable in a case where the cheque issued towards premium was bounced so long as the policy is subsisting on the basis of the cheque issued initially and when the policy is cancelled by the Insurance Company, it is sine qua non that the notice of cancellation shall reach the owner of the vehicle and, of course, the Road Transport Authority.
1 2000 (2) ALD 75 (SC)
M.A.CMA.No.276 of 2009 & batch ASN,J
7
indication that the concerned officials of the Insurance Company dispatched them on 21.03.2006 to the owner of the lorry and the Road Transport Authority. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal in discarding Exs.B2 to B7, cannot be upset as the same is based on appreciation of evidence on record and in accordance with the evidentiary rule. Hence, there is no merit in these appeals.
___________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J September 26, 2016. MD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal erred in fixing liability on the insurer given the cheque for the premium was dishonoured.
Whether valid communication of policy cancellation to the vehicle owner and Road Transport Authority prior to the accident date was established.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
New India Assurance Company v. RulaRelied on¶16
2000 (2) ALD 75 (SC)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
New India Assurance Company Limited
Wife of Banoth Kishan
Owner of lorry AAK5544
A. Shankar Narayana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
