United India Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Pramilabai Arunrao Supale And 4 ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1275 Bom

                                                                                 fa145.07
                                             1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH 




                                                                               
                              NAGPUR.

                        FIRST   APPEAL     NO.    145    OF     2007




                                                       
    United India Insurance 




                                                      
    Company Ltd. Khamgaon,
    through its office at 
    Amravati, Tal. & Distt.
    Amravati.                                                       APPELLANT.




                                           
                              ig          VERSUS

    1] Pramilabai wd/o Arunrao
    Supale, aged 54 yrs. Occu.
                            
    Household work. 

    2] Atul Arunrao Supale,
    aged 38 yrs. 
      


    3] Prashant Arunrao Supale,
    aged 34 yrs.
   



    Respondent nos. 1 to 3 R/o 

L.I.C. Colony, Amravati, Morshi Road, Amravati.

4] Gajanan Purushottam Patil, aged not known, Occu. Business, Owner of vehicle (Now dead) through L. Rs.:

4A] Laxmibai wd/o Gajanan Patil aged 63 yrs. Occu.

Household work.

4B] Vitthal Gajanan Patil, aged 43yrs. Occu.Agriculturist.

4C] Vishweshwar Gajanan Patil, aged 38 yrs. Occu. Service.

fa145.07

4D] Gatu Gajanan Patil

(Deleted).

Respondents nos. 4A to 4D

residents of Shegaon, Tq.

Khamgaon Distt. Buldhana.

5] Sk.Jehur Sk. Jeelani

(Deleted). RESPONDENTS.

Shri S. N. Dhanagare, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents.

                              CORAM:     A. S. CHANDURKAR  J.
                               
                                      Dated    :   APRIL  06, 2016.
                             
    ORAL JUDGMENT: 
      

This appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 is by the Insurance Company which is aggrieved by the judgment of the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati dated 14.08.2006 by which it has

been held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

2] On 21.04.1997 a luxury bus owned by the predecessor of

respondent 4(a) to 4(c) met with an accident. One Arun Supale who was

travelling in the bus died as a result of said accident. His legal

representatives therefore filed claim for compensation of amount of Rs.

7,00,000/-. The Claims Tribunal by the impugned judgment awarded

compensation of amount of Rs. 3,17,500/-.

3] Shri S. N. Dhanagare, the learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that the vehicle in question was not insured with the appellant

fa145.07

company. A cheque for the amount of premium was issued by the owner of

the vehicle on 12.08.1996. The period of policy as per the cover note was

from 19.08.1996 to 18.08.1997. However, the cheque issued by the owner

was dishonored and hence there was no premium paid by him. It was,

therefore, submitted that in absence of payment of premium the appellant

could not be held jointly and severally liable.

4] There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. With the

assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant I have perused the records

and I have gone through the impugned judgment. The point that arises for

consideration is:

Whether a case for interference with impugned award is made out?

5] The admitted position on record is that the cheque issued

towards the payment of premium was dishonoured. Though it is the case of

the appellant that a letter dated 30.08.1996 was issued by it to the owner of

the vehicle, there is no acknowledgment of the same. Similarly it has been

found by the Claims Tribunal that there is no intimation given by the

appellant as regards cancellation of the policy to the Regional Transport

Office. Intimation about cancellation of the policy to the Regional Transport

Office is after the occurrence of the accident. It is, therefore, clear that the

statutory requirements of the provisions of Section 147(4) of the said Act had

not been complied with. It is well settled that unless the aforesaid mandatory

requirements are duly complied with it would not be open for the Insurance

Company to avoid its liability. The Claims Tribunal has rightly considered

fa145.07

the legal position in that regard in paragraphs 15 to 21 of the impugned

judgment. The point as framed is therefore answered by holding that there is

no case made out to interfere with the award of the Claims Tribunal.

6] In view of aforesaid the following order is passed:

Judgment dated 14.08.2006 passed in Claim Petition No. 45 of

1998 stands confirmed.

It is open for the appellant to exhaust its remedies against the

owner of the vehicle in accordance with law. Subject to aforesaid

observations first appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGE

svk