Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 23178 Mad
Judgement Date : 26 November, 2021
CMA.No.2652 of 2021
and CMP.No.15165 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
CMA.No.2652 of 2021
and
CMP.No.15165 of 2021
The Branch Manager,
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
No.347, J.N.Street,
(opposite to Muthu Gold House),
Puducherry – 1. ...Appellant
Vs.
1.Manohar
2.Babu ..Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 11.02.2021 made in
MCOP.No.735 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
(Additional Sub-Court), Puducherry.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Dhakshinamoorthy
For Respondents : Notice served
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.2652 of 2021
and CMP.No.15165 of 2021
JUDGMENT
The challenge in this appeal is to the award of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal made in MCOP.No.735 of 2018 on the file of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub-Court), Puducherry.
2.The claimant sought for compensation of a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in the Motor Accident that
occurred on 12.07.2018. According to the claimant, he was passenger in the
bus bearing Registration No.PY-01-CE-7799. When it stopped at the bus
stop and he was about to alight from the bus, the driver moved the bus in a
rash and negligent manner. Due to the sudden movement, the petitioner fell
down and the rear wheel of the bus ran over his leg. As a result of the
accident, he had suffered several injuries in his right leg, left hand and a
head injury also. Contending that the negligence on the part of the driver of
the bus is the cause of the accident, the claimant sought for compensation.
The Appellant was impleaded as an Insurer of the bus that was responsible
for the accident.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2652 of 2021 and CMP.No.15165 of 2021
3.The claim was resisted by the Appellant / Insurance Company,
contending that there was no valid contract of Insurance, since the cheque
issued by the 1st respondent / owner of the bus covering the premium
payable under the policy was dishonoured and therefore, in terms of Section
64-VB of the Insurance Act, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable.
The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle remained exparte. The
Tribunal assessed the compensation payable at Rs.3,36,000/-.
4.On the question of liability of the Insurance Company, the
Tribunal found that the cheque was in fact, dishonoured. The Tribunal
however, concluded that the Insurance Company would be liable, since it
has not proved that the intimation of the cancellation of the policy was
given to the owner and the road transport Office before the accident. The
Tribunal also faulted the Insurance Company for not producing the
acknowledgments for the receipt of the letters dated 19.07.2018 addressed
to the owner and the road transport Officer regarding cancellation of the
policy. On the above conclusion, the Tribunal held that the Insurance
Company is liable to indemnify the owner and therofore, it is liable to pay
the award amount.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2652 of 2021 and CMP.No.15165 of 2021
5.Heard Mr.S.Dhakshinamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for
the Appellant. The respondents though served, are not appearing either in
person or through counsel, duly instructed.
6.Mr.S.Dhakshinamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant / Insurance Company would contend that he has no grievance
with the award of the Tribunal on the quantum and its conclusion that the
Insurance Company would be liable to compensate the victim, who is a 3 rd
party to the contract of Insurance. The learned counsel would however,
contend that the Tribunal must have held that on the dishonour of the
cheque, the Insurance Company would not be liable to indemnify the owner
and therefore, it would have the right to recover the compensation from the
owner. The sum and substance of the arguments of the learned counsel is
that the Insurance Company must have been given the liberty to recover the
money paid from the owner of the vehicle. I have considered the
submission of the learned counsel.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2652 of 2021 and CMP.No.15165 of 2021
7.The policy in this case was issued on 07.07.2018. The cheque
was issued on 06.07.2018. The cheque was returned on 12.07.2018, on
which date, the accident also occured. On 19.07.2018, the Insurance
Company vide Exs.R3 and R4 informed the owner and the Road Transport
Officer about the dishonour of the cheque and the cancellation of the policy.
The Tribunal has held that the Insurance Company would be liable to
compensate the victim, since the cancellation happened after the accident.
The Tribunal also found that the cheque was returned on 12.07.2018, the
date on which, the accident occurred. Therefore, there could not have been
a repudiation of the policy prior to the accident.
8.No doubt, the law on this aspect is settled to the effect that
repudiation of the policy after the accident would not discharge the liability
of the Insurance Company towards a 3rd party namely, the claimant.
Therefore, the Tribunal was right in concluding that the Insurance Company
is liable to compensate the claimant for the loss. At the same time, the
Tribunal must have taken care to order pay and recovery, in as much as, the
owner, who had not paid the premium cannot seek indemnification from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2652 of 2021 and CMP.No.15165 of 2021
Insurance Company. The contract of Insurance is based on good faith and it
is a contract of indemnity. Unless the premium is paid, the liability to
indemnify would not arise. Therefore, the Tribunal was wrong in
concluding that the Insurance Company would be liable to indemnify the
owner. Liability to pay a 3rd party claimant is different from the liability to
indemnify the owner. The liability to pay a 3rd party claimant can be there,
at the same time, the liability to indemnify to owner need not be
contractually available.
9.Hence, this appeal is partly allowed, the award of the Tribunal is
modified. The Insurance Company will be entitled to recover the
compensation paid from the owner of the bus, in question by levying
execution as is done in the other cases where pay and recovery is ordered by
Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected miscllaneous petition is
closed.
26.11.2021
kkn
Index:No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2652 of 2021 and CMP.No.15165 of 2021
Internet:Yes Speaking
To:-
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional Sub-Court, Puducherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2652 of 2021 and CMP.No.15165 of 2021
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
KKN
CMA.No.2652 of 2021 and CMP.No.15165 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA.No.2652 of 2021 and CMP.No.15165 of 2021
26.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!