Oriental Ins Co. Ltd v. Darshan Kaur and Ors

IN T

ORIENTAL IN

DARSHAN KA

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr for

Mr Mr SUDEEPTI SH

1.

The against the aw Chandigarh (for Motor Vehicles of Rs.3,14,200/- FACTS NOT IN

2.

Bri alongwith his br (near Dharampu side. When the truck bearing N of crossing each in between and THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA

FA

Da NSURANCE CO. LTD.

VERSUS AUR AND ORS

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r. R.P. Daria, Advocate for the ap r.K.K. Garg, Advocate the respondents No.1 to 4. r.Ravinder Arora, Advocate with r. Vipul, Advocate for responden -.-

HARMA, J. e present appeal has been pref ward passed by the learned M r short, 'the Tribunal') on 08.0 Act, 1988, whereby, the claima - along with interest @ 9% per an N DISPUTE ief facts of the case are that rother Pal Singh boarded a bus N ur), from Chandigarh. He was bus reached near Chow Blind o.HP-14-3373 came from the sid h other, the driver of both the ve collided with each other. As a re

JAB AND HARYANA ARH

AO-4883-2005 (O&M) ate of Decision : 21.10.2024

....APPELLANT

....RESPONDENTS EEPTI SHARMA ppellant-Insurance Company. h nt Nos.7 and 8. ferred by the Insurance Compa Motor Accident Claims Tribun

08.2005 under Section 166 of ants were awarded a compensat annum. t on 30.07.2001 Bhagwan Sin No. HP-25-0792 for going to Nog sitting near window of the dri d curve Bathol Dharampur, the de of Dharampur and in the proc ehicles failed to maintain a dista esult of the impact, Bhagwan Sin

any nal, tion ngh gali iver en a cess ance

suffered head in his head. Bhagw

3.

Up the factum of co

4.

Fro issues:-

5.

Aft record, the learn alongwith intere SUBMISSIONS

6.

The the date of insu njuries as the window panes of t wan Singh died on the spot due to on notice of the claim petition, ompensation. om the pleading of the parties, "1. Whether Bhagwan Singh place on 30.7.01 at about 6 near Chow Blind Curve Bath & negligent driving of bus N 14-3373 by their respective owned by respondents no.4 a

¶2If issue no.1 is proved wh amount as compensation, whom? OPP

¶3Whether respondent no.1 licence at the time of acciden

¶4Relief." ter taking into consideration th rned Tribunal awarded compens est @ 9% per annum. Hence the S OF THE COUNSELS e learned counsel for appellant-urance is 21.09.2000, which was

the bus were broken and hit agai o grievous injuries suffered by hi , respondents appeared and den the Tribunal framed the follow h died in a road accident which t

6.45 a.m. on national highway n hol, Dharampur on account of r N0. HP-25-0792 and truck No. H drivers i.e. respondents no.1 & and 2 respectively? OPP hether claimants are entitled to a if so, to what amount and fr 1 was not holding a valid driv nt if so, its effect? OPR-3 he pleadings and the evidence sation to the tune of Rs.3,14,20 present appeal. -Insurance Company contends t s cancelled because of dishonor

inst im. nied wing ook no.2 rash HP-& 5, any rom ving on 00/-

the cheque on 2 once there is no making the ori amount of comp Court in Dedda Co. Ltd., 2008 A

7.

Per the award passe

8.

Per learned Tribuna company is liab the present appe

9.

I h record of this ca

10.

A p into considerati also liable to p relevant extract "22 resp Ins per tak

4.11.2000 and the date of accide o insurance and it was cancelled ental insurance company liable pensation. He relies upon the j pa and others versus The Bran AIR Supreme Court 767. r contra, learned for the respond d by the learned Tribunal is liabl r contra, learned for the respon al vide award dated 08.08.2005 le to pay the amount of compens eal is liable to be dismissed. have heard learned counsel for ase. perusal of the award shows tha on arguments of both the parti pay the amount of compensatio of the award is reproduced as un

¶2The moot point in this parti pondent no.3 namely Orienta urance Company insured the tr r insurance cover. The counse ken a firm stand that the insura e cheque of premium was dishono

ent is 30.07.2001. He contends t d, the learned Tribunal has erred e to pay jointly and severely judgment of the Hon'ble Supre nch Manager, National Insura dents No.1 to 4-claimant argues t le to be enhanced.

ndents No.7 and 8 argues that has rightly held that the insura sation awarded to the claimants the parties and perused the wh at the learned Tribunal after tak es held that insurance company on awarded to the claimants. T nder:- icular case is regarding liability al Insurance Company. Orien ruck No. HP-14-3373 on 21.9.2k el for the insurance company nce company is not liable beca oured and the insurance policy w

d in eme nce ance and hole king y is The y of ntal k as has ause

can sen rec title

(1) cas pol abs

¶23pre cou pol veh req view run ncelled vide letter dt. 24.11.2k (E nt to the owner of vehicle Vik ceipt of which is Ex. R-7. In this ed as New India Assurance Com Accidents Compensation Judic se because of dishonouring of licy was cancelled and accord solved of its liability to pay the c

Every case has got its ow esent case are quite different fro unsel for the insurance compan licy was cancelled and intimat hicle but no intimation was sen quired under the Motor Vehicles w that in this particular case s 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act 19 ns as follows:- "Where a cover note provisions of this Cha is not followed by a prescribed time, the i the expiry of the perio notify the fact to th records the vehicle to

Ex-R-5) and its intimation was d kram Singh vide registered co context he relied upon an autho mpany Ltd Vs. Raghu and Ors 20 cial Reports 282. In this particu cheque of premium of policy, dingly the insurance company w ompensation. wn distinct facts. The facts of om the authority relied upon by ny. In the present case though tion was sent to the owner of nt to the Registering Authority s Act, 1988. I am of the conside section 147 (clause 4) and Sect 988 applies. Section 147 (clause e issued by the insurer under apter or the rules made thereun a policy of insurance within insurer shall, within seven days od of the validity of the cover no he registering authority in wh o which the cover note relates

duly over rity ular was y as ered tion e 4) nder s of ote, hose

Sim foll

¶24title been registered or to Government may presc milarly Section 149 of the Mo lows:- "(1) If, after a certifi under sub-section (3) person by whom a pol award in respect of an covered by a policy un section 147 (being a policy) (or under th obtained against any p notwithstanding that t or cancel or may hav the insurer shall, subje pay to the person en sum not exceeding the as if he were the ju liability, together with costs and any sum pay sum by virtue of any judgments."

To decide this point reliance ed as Oriental Insurance Com

such other authority as the St cribe." Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 runs cate of insurance has been issu ) of Section 147 in favour of licy has been effected, judgment ny such liability as is required to nder clause (b) of sub-section (1) liability covered by the terms e provisions of section 163A) person insured by the policy, th the insurer may be entitled to av ve avoided or cancelled the pol ect to the provisions of this secti titled to the benefit of decree a e sum assured payable thereund udgment debtor, in respect of h any amount payable in respec ayable in respect of interest on t enactment relating to interest e is further placed on an autho mpany Ltd Vs. Inderjit Kaur a

tate as ued t or o be ) of s of ) is hen, void licy, ion, any der, ct of on rity

oth whe pre its com not pla Ma Jud bec com Rel Com as was liab

¶25in insu Reg Mo hers, AIR, 1988, SC, 588 wherein ere insurer has issued the poli emium, he becomes liable to ind liability which policy cove mpensation. Provisions of sectio t absolve the insurer of its liab aced on an authority titled as U ahendra Singh and others, 20 dicial Reports 205 wherein it h cause the cheque was dishonou mpany to the claim of third party e insurance company could reco liance is further placed on an au mpany Limited Vs. Pinjary Huss e insurance policy was cancelled e cancellation was not communi required under Section 147 (4) s held that the insurance comp bility to the third party though it

In view of the detailed discus the present case after the c urance company no intimation gistering Authority as is requi otor Vehicle Act. Moreover in

n it has categorically been held t icy to cover bus without receiv demnify the third party in respec ers and to satisfy awards on 64-VB of the Insurance Act d bility. Similarly reliance is furt United India. Insurance Co, Ltd 005 (1) Accidents Compensat has been clearly held that mer ured, the liability of the insura y had not come to an end. Howe over the amount from the insur uthority titled as Oriental Insura sainamma, 2002 ACJ, 597 wher d prior to the date of accident icated to the Registering Autho of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 mpany was not exempted from could proceed against the owne ssion made above it is manifest t ancellation of the policy by n/communication was sent to red under Section 147 (4) of view of section 149 of the Mo

ving ct of of does ther Vs. tion rely nce ever red. nce rein but rity

¶8It er.

Veh liab com Com com aga be j

11.

A dishonoured an (Ex.P-5) and it vehicle vide reg law as held by Branch Manag insurance has b insurance comp extract of the jud hicles Act 1988 and Section bility of the insurance company me to an end. Accordingly it mpany-respondent no.3 is also e claimants along with other re mpany lateron may sue the ori ainst him. The liability of all the joint and several." perusal of the above reveals nd insurance policy was cance ts intimation was duly sent to gistered cover receipt, which is E the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ger, National Insurance Co. L been cancelled and all concerne pany would not be liable to pay dgment are reproduced as under "22. A contract is based o promises by the parties are contract. A contract furtherm

¶23In today's world paym accepted as valid tender. Se provides for such a scheme.

64-VB of the Insurance Act, y towards the third party does is held that Oriental Insura liable to pay the compensation espondents. However the insura iginal owner to satisfy their cla e five respondents in this case sh that the cheque of premium w elled vide letter dated 24.11.20 Vikram Singh, the owner of Ex.R-7. It is a settled proposition Deddapa and others versus T Ltd (supra) that if the contract ed have been intimated thereabo y the compensation. The relev :- on reciprocal promise. Recipro e condition precedents for a va more must be for consideration. ment made by cheque is ordina ection 64VB of the 1938 Act a

not nce n to nce aim hall was n of The t of out, vant ocal alid arily

¶24Payment by cheque encashment. In Damadila [(1976) 4 SCC 855], this Cou "On the ground the defendants cheque within th whether this w established that on the request o operates as vali cheque was s presentation, the the cheque was

25. XXXX

XX

¶26We are not obliviou statutory liability of the Ins party in the context of Sectio liabilities in other cases. But contract of insurance would valid. If the contract of ins concerned have been intim opinion, the insurance comp the claim."

e, however, is subject to al & Ors. v. Parashram & O urt observed :- d of default, it is not disputed t tendered the amount in arrears he prescribed time. The question was a lawful tender. It is w a cheque sent in payment of a d of the creditor, unless dishonour id discharge of the debt and, if sent by post and was met e date of payment is the date wh posted..." XXXX

XXXXX us of the distinction between surance Company vis-a-vis a th ons 147 and 149 of the Act and t the same liabilities arising unde d have to be met if the contrac urance has been cancelled and mated thereabout, we are of pany would not be liable to sati

its Ors. by n is well-debt red, on hen hird d its er a ct is all

12.

On precedent, the a stands vitiated b

13.

In v that insurance respondents No.

14.

Pen

October 21, 202 A.Kaundal

Whether s

Whether r n the touchstone of hereinabov award dated 08.08.2005 passed by a complete absence of judicial view of the above, the present ap company shall not be liable .7 is held liable to pay the compe nding applications, if any, also st

(

speaking/non-speaking : Speakin reportable

: Yes/No

ve discussed findings and judi d by learned Tribunal, Chandig l application of mind. ppeal is partly allowed to the ext e to pay the compensation ensation. tand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE ng

cial garh tent