M/S.Icici Lombard General ... vs S.Iyanar
2021 Latest Caselaw 4739 Mad

                                                                                     C.M.A.No.2090 of 2017


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                       Date: 23.02.2021

                                                          Coram::

                                   THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

                                                 C.M.A.No.2090 of 2017

              M/s.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited,
              Chottabhai Centre,
              No.140, 2nd & 3rd Floor,
              Nungambakkam High Road,
              Chennai – 600 034.                                 ... Appellant

                                                           /versus/

              1. S.Iyanar,
              2. R.Sathish Kumar,
              (2nd respondent ex parte in Lower Court)                     ... Respondents

              Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle
              Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.1954 of 2007, dated
              20.12.2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional
              Subordinate Court No.1, Cuddalore.



                                       For Appellant            : Mrs.R.Sreevidhya

                                       For R1                   : Mr.R.Sreedhar

                                       For R2                   : No appearance




             1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                           C.M.A.No.2090 of 2017


                                                        JUDGMENT

This Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the

award passed by the Tribunal fixing liability on the Insurance Company to pay the

accident victim, though on the date of accident, there was no valid insurance

coverage for the offending vehicle.

2. The shorts point involved in this case is that, on 12.07.2007, when the

claimant met with the accident near L.P.Puram E.B Office along Chennai to Panruti

Salai, the offending lorry bearing registration No.TN-20-AY-2979 had no valid

insurance coverage, as per the contention of the Insurance Company.

3. The Tribunal, while considering the claim petition filed by the

accident victim had relied upon Ex.P.5, the copy of the Insurance Policy to hold that

the offending vehicle had valid insurance coverage for the period from 16.06.2007 to

15.06.2008. The tribunal has failed to note that cheque given for payment of the

premium amount of Rs.10,194/- on presentation bounce back. Due to dishonouring

of the cheque, the Insurance Company has cancelled the insurance coverage and

intimated the same to the vehicle owner.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2090 of 2017

4. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance

Company Limited -vs- Laxmamma and others reported in (2012) 5 SCC 234, if the

premium not paid or the cheque gets bounced later, the tentative coverage provided

by the Insurance Company can be cancelled, after due notice to the vehicle owner

and the R.T.O Office concern.

5. In this case, from the documents, this Court finds that Ex.R.1 is the

cheque dated 16.06.2007 given for premium. On presentation, it bounced back on

22.06.2007. Immediately the owner of the vehicle has been intimated but the said

intimation letter was returned 'unserved.' However, on the part of the Insurance

Company with due diligence, cancellation has been notified to the authorities as well

as the insurer soon after the non-realisation of the premium amount. The accident

occurred on 12.07.2007 much after the cancellation of the insurance. Therefore,

Ex.P.5 Policy which was issued tentatively on receipt of the cheque towards the

premium amount cannot be held as valid insurance coverage, even after the

cancellation.

6. The Tribunal has erred on this score and directed the Insurance

Company to pay the compensation and indemnify the insurer, who in fact has not

paid the premium amount. Therefore, to that extent, the award of the tribunal bound

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2090 of 2017

to be interfered. As a result, the Appeal filed by the Insurance Company is Allowed,

to the extend of exonerating them from indemnifying the owner of the offending

vehicle, who on the date of accident had not covered his vehicle with proper

insurance.

7. The Leaned Counsel for the claimant/1st respondent states that the

compensation amount deposited by the Insurance Company already been withdrawn

by the claimant. If it is so, the Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the money

from the vehicle owner and if any money still lying in the deposit of M.C.O.P.

account, the Insurance Company shall withdrawn on filing property application.

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is Allowed. No costs.

                                                                                              23.02.2021
              Index       :Yes/No
              Speaking order/Non-speaking order.
              bsm


              To:-

1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Subordinate Court No.1, Cuddalore.

2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2090 of 2017

Dr.G.Jayachandran,J.

bsm

C.M.A.No.2090 of 2017

23.02.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/