Iffco Tokio Gen Ins Co Ltd vs Anita & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 6388 Del

$~A-6
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Date of decision: 02.12.2014

+     MAC.APP. 367/2011

      IFFCO TOKIO GEN INS CO LTD                  ..... Appellant
                      Through  Ms.Shanta Devi Raman and Mr.Garud
                               M.V., Advocates
               versus
      ANITA & ORS                         ..... Respondent
                      Through Mr.Anshuman Bal, Advocate for R-1
                               to R-3
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal seeks to impugn the Award dated 26.2.2011. The controversy revolves around the validity of the insurance policy. On 12.10.2008 the deceased Moni Singh was going on a motorcycle driven by him. Mahender Singh was sitting on the pillion seat. The vehicle was hit by a Tata 407 truck. Moni Singh received fatal injuries.

2. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.11,33,968/-.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company submits that an Insurance cover note was issued for the offending vehicle, the Tata 407 truck. The cheque for Rs.7,993/- on presentation was dishonoured by the bankers. The policy was hence cancelled vide notice dated 28.3.2008 and notice was sent to respondent No.6. He also points out that the Tribunal also concluded that the notice has been duly received by respondent No.6 but no payment was made. It is urged that the Tribunal, however, erroneously

concluded that no notice has been served on the Regional Transport Authority and accordingly the Tribunal wrongly directed the appellant to pay the claimed amount. However, recovery rights were granted against respondent No.6.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4/claimants relies upon a judgment of this Court in MAC.APP.No.418/2012 titled Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Dr.Sarjeet Singh Thakur & Ors. decided on 20.4.2012 where this Court relying on Deddappa & Ors. vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited (2008) (2) SCC 595, New India Assurance Ltd. vs. Rula & Ors. (2000) 3 SCC 195 and Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Inderjit Kaur (1998) 1 SCC 371 held that if an insurance policy is cancelled on account of dishonour of cheque and the insured as well as the Regional Transport Office are informed about the same, the third party would not be entitled to get the compensation from the Insurance Company. However, if the insured is only informed and the information to RTO is not given the insurance company will be liable to pay to the third party but would get the recovery against the insured. The relevant para of the judgment reads as under:-

5..In Deddappa & Ors. v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, (2008) (2) SCC 595; the Supreme Court considered the judgment in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Inderjit Kaur, (1998) 1 SCC 371 & New India Assurance Company Limited v. Rula, (2000) 3 SCC 195 and held that if an insurance policy is cancelled on account of dishonour of cheque and the Insured as well as the RTO are informed about the same, the third party would not be entitled to get the compensation from the Insurance Company as they are liable only so long as the policy subsisted.

6. ........ if the insured is informed but no intimation is given

to the RTO, the Insurance Company would be liable to the third party with the right of recovery against the insured.

5. A perusal of the Award shows that the Tribunal concluded that the notice issued was duly served on respondent No.6. The Tribunal rejected the contention of respondent No.6 that he has made payment of the premium in cash. The Tribunal also noted that though it is the case of the appellant company that notice of cancellation of policy has been sent to the RTO but no postal receipt has been produced. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the appellant to pay the liability to the claimant but granted recovery rights against respondent No.6.

6. In the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Dr.Sarjeet Singh Thakur & Ors.(supra) there is no reason to differ with the views of the Tribunal.

7. I may also note that the accident took place on 12.10.2008. The claimants are not very rich persons. Pursuant to interim orders of this Court passed on 29.4.2011 the appellants have already deposited the entire award amount with this Court. On 20.1.2012 a sum of Rs.1 lac was also released to the claimants from this deposited amount.

8. Hence, even otherwise in the facts and circumstances of this case, especially keeping into account the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jawahar Singh v. Bala Jain & Others, AIR 2011 SC 2436 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharathamma & ors., (2004)8 SCC 517, I see no reason to interfere with the directions in the Award.

9. The petition is disposed of.

10. The Award amount lying deposited with the Registrar General of this

Court alongwith accumulated up to date interest be released to the claimants proportionately in the same manner as directed by the Tribunal.

11. Statutory amount, if any, deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the insurance company.

12. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the claimant points out that respondent No.4 Smt.Sumitra has died and her share be released to Smt.Anita. Necessary corrections be made accordingly.

13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant also points out that respondent No.6 has died and his legal heirs are already on record. Needless to add recovery can be effected from the legal heirs as permissible under the law.

14. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

JAYANT NATH, J DECEMBER 02, 2014 n