Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd vs Saraswati Dutta And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 5970 Cal

06.09.2023                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ct. no.654                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Sl. No.229-230
    Sn/KB                               F.M.A. 1121 of 2022

                                 Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd.
                                            -vs-
                                   Saraswati Dutta and others
                                             with
                                        COT 79 of 2022
                                Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd.
                                             -vs-
                                   Saraswati Dutta and others

                          Mr. Rajesh Singh
                                         ... For appellant-Insurance Co.

                          Mr. Jayanta Banerjee
                          Mr. Sandip Bandopadhyay
                                         ... For the claimants-respondents

and cross objector

This appeal is preferred against the judgment and

award dated 20th March, 2018 passed by the learned

Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kalna, Burdwan

in MAC Case No. 27 of 2014 granting compensation of Rs.

2,01,500/- together with interest in favour of the

claimant no.1 under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988.

The brief fact of the case is that on 26th April, 2014,

while the victim was proceeding towards his house on a

bicycle and when he reached near Lichutala More

suddenly the offending vehicle bearing registration no.

WB-41E/9566 dashed the victim from behind due to

which the victim sustained injuries and died on the spot.

On account of sudden demise of the victim, the claimants

being the widow and sons of the deceased filed

application for compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- under

Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The claimants in order to establish their case

examined one witness and produced documents, which

have been marked as Exhibits 1 to 13 respectively.

The appellant-insurance company did not contest

the claim application.

Since the respondent no. 3, owner of the offending

vehicle did not contest the claim application, service of

notice of appeal upon the said respondent stands

dispensed with.

Upon considering the materials on record and the

evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants-respondents,

the learned Tribunal granted compensation of

Rs.02,01,500/- together with interest in favour of the

claimant no. 1 under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

impugned judgment and award of the learned Tribunal,

the insurance company has preferred the present appeal.

Mr. Rajesh Singh, learned advocate for the

appellant-insurance company submits that the premium

paid through cheque was dishonoured for insufficient

funds and thus on the date of accident the offending

vehicle did not have the valid insurance policy. Due to

the aforesaid reasons, the insurance company cannot

held liable to pay compensation in respect of the vehicle

which was not insured at all. In the light of his aforesaid

submissions, he prays for setting the order of the learned

Tribunal.

In reply to the contentions raised on behalf of the

appellant-insurance company, Mr. Jayanta Banerjee,

learned advocate for the respondents-claimants submits

that the insurance company in spite of receipt of notice

did not contest the claim application to establish grounds

taken in the appeal and therefore the impugned order

passed by the learned Tribunal should be affirmed.

Having heard the learned advocates for the

respective parties, the only issue that has fallen for

consideration is whether on the relevant date of accident

there was valid policy of insurance company.

With regard to the aforesaid issue, though, Mr.

Singh, learned advocate for appellant-insurance

company has argued that due to dishonour of the cheque

issued towards premium of policy of the insurance

company, there was no existing policy of the vehicle, yet,

it is found from the materials on record that the

insurance company did not appear to contest and place

such ground before the learned Tribunal. In view of the

above, arguments advanced on behalf of the insurance

company fall short of merit.

No other ground that has been placed into service

in this appeal.

Mr. Jayanta Banerjee, learned advocate for the

respondents-claimants submits that the respondents-

claimants do not intend to press the cross-objection and

submits for withdrawal of the Cross Objection filed by the

respondents-claimants.

Accordingly, the Cross-Objection being COT 79 of

2022 stands dismissed as withdrawn.

In view of the above discussion, the appeal also

fails.

The impugned judgment and award of the learned

Tribunal is affirmed.

It is found that the insurance company has already

deposited the awarded sum together with interest

amounting to Rs.2,65,331/- before the registry of this

Court vide O.D. challan no.657 dated 27th September,

2021 and Rs.25,000/- towards statutory deposit vide

O.D. challan no.3484 dated 18th February, 2021.

The learned Registrar General, High Court,

Calcutta, shall release the aforesaid amount together with

accrued interest in favour of the respondent no.1, widow

of the deceased, upon satisfaction of her identity.

The appeal and the Cross-Objection thus stand

disposed of. No order as to costs.

All the connected applications, if any, stand disposed

of.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Let a copy of this order along with the Lower Court

Records be sent to the learned Court below for information

in accordance with the rules.

Urgent photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be

given to the parties upon compliance of necessary legal

formalities.

      <                          (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)