Madras High Court

The Manager vs Tmt. Lalitha on 7 December, 2023

Author: M.Dhandapani

Bench: M.Dhandapani

                                                                                    _________________
                                                                        CMA. Nos.4124/2019 - 3679/2021




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATE : 07.12.2023

                                                        CORAM

                                    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

                                               C.M.A. NO. 4124 OF 2019
                                                        AND
                                               C.M.A. NO. 3679 OF 2021

                     The Manager
                     M/s.Cholamandalam MS General
                     Insurance Co. Ltd.
                     Motor TP Claims
                     No.5, Thambu Chetty Street
                     Chennai 600 001.                        .. Appellant in CMA 4124/2019

                     Tmt. Lalitha                            .. Appellant in CMA 3679/2021

                                                         - Vs -

                          1. Tmt. Lalitha
                          2. B.Raja                          .. Respondents in CMA 4124/2019

                          1. B.Raja
                          2. The Manager
                          M/s.Cholamandalam MS General
                          Insurance Co. Ltd., Motor TP Claims
                          No.5, Thambu Chetty Street
                          Chennai 600 001.                  .. Respondents in CMA 3679/2019




                     1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                               _________________
                                                                                   CMA. Nos.4124/2019 - 3679/2021




                                  Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles

                     Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2018 made in MCOP

                     No.293/2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Tiruvallur

                     (Special District Court, Tiruvallur – Special District Judge).

                                     For Appellants         :    Mr. N.Vijayaraghavan for
                                                                 M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates in
                                                                 CMA 4124/2019
                                                                 Mr. U.Chithambaram for
                                                                 M/s. G.Balakrishnan in CMA
                                                                 3679/2021
                                     For Respondents        :    Mr. P.Kavinprabhu for
                                                                 Mr. Jayanth K.Sha in CMA
                                                                 4124/2019 for R-2 and for R-1 in
                                                                 CMA 3679/2021
                                                                 Mr. N.Vijayaraghavan for
                                                                 M/s. M.B.Gopalan Associates for
                                                                 R-2 in CMA 3679/2021
                                                                 Mr. U.Chithambaram for
                                                                 M/s. G.Balakrishnan for R-1 in
                                                                 CMA 4124/2021

                                                       COMMON JUDGMENT

While the insurance company, viz., the appellant in CMA

No.4124/2019, has questioned the liability of the insurance company to pay

the compensation as ordered by the Tribunal, CMA No.3679/2021 has been

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _________________ CMA. Nos.4124/2019 - 3679/2021

filed by the claimant assailing the quantum of compensation and further

claiming enhanced compensation.

2. For brevity, the appellant in CMA No.4142/2019 and the appellant in

CMA No.3679/2021 will be referred to as insurance company and claimant.

3. On 21.4.2014, at about 6.30 p.m., when the deceased was driving his

two wheeler bearing Regn. No.TN-20-BJ-1004, the Eicher Van, bearing Regn.

No.TN-22-AC-5245, belonging to the 2nd respondent in CMA No.4124/2019,

driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the two

wheeler driven by the deceased in which the deceased sustained grievous

injuries and died on the spot. Since the family had lost its sole bread winner,

the claimant, viz., the mother of the deceased, filed claim petition claiming a

compensation of Rs.15,0,000/= by filing MCOP No.293/2015.

4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and one

other witness as P.W.2 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-8. On behalf of the insurance

company, R.W.s 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R-1 to R-5 were marked.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _________________ CMA. Nos.4124/2019 - 3679/2021

Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the claim

in favour of the claimant by awarding a compensation of Rs.9,06,000/-

together with interest at 7.5% p.a. and costs from the date of petition till the

date of deposit. Aggrieved by the inadequate quantum of compensation,

while the claimant has filed the present appeal, the insurance company has

assailed the said order on the ground that the vehicle was not possessed of a

valid insurance coverage.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted

that on the date of the accident, the Eicher van was not possessed of a valid

insurance coverage and the coverage for the said van was taken only on the

next day, viz., on 22.4.2014 by paying the premium in cash and, therefore, for

the accident, which took place on the previous day, when the vehicle was not

possessed of a valid insurance, the insurance company cannot be mulcted

with the liability to pay the amount and recover the same from the owner of

the vehicle. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel placed

reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Deddappa & Ors. – Vs – The

Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2008 (2) TN MAC 138 (SC)).

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _________________ CMA. Nos.4124/2019 - 3679/2021

6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate on all the heads and

proper appreciation with regard to compensation has not been made by the

Tribunal.

7. Learned counsel for the claimant further submitted that the act of

the owner of the vehicle in not renewing the insurance cannot be put against

the claimant and the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act being a

benevolent legislation, rightly the Tribunal had ordered the insurance

company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of

the vehicle, which does not require any interference.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle submitted

that proposal form had been submitted way back on 19.4.2014 even before

the date when the insurance coverage fell due and the amount having been

paid necessarily the insurance company ought to cover the vehicle and,

therefore, the order of the Tribunal directing the insurance company to pay

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _________________ CMA. Nos.4124/2019 - 3679/2021

the amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle is wholly

unsustainable and, accordingly, prays for setting aside the said portion

directing recovery from the owner of the vehicle.

9. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions

advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company and

also the learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle and also

perused the decision to which this Court’s attention was drawn.

10. The law of contracts, which is the guiding factor in insurance claims,

has been succinctly dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of Deddappa &

Ors. – Vs – The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2008 (2) TN

MAC 138 (SC)), wherein, in case of cheque dishonour in the case of policies

which cover the vehicle, the liability being contractual in nature, the Apex

Court has held as under:-

17. We may, however, notice that in terms of sub- section (5) of Section 147 and sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the Act, the Insurance Company became liable to satisfy awards of compensation in respect thereof, notwithstanding its entitlement to avoid or cancel the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _________________ CMA. Nos.4124/2019 - 3679/2021

policy for the reason that the cheque issued for payment of premium thereon had not been honoured.

18. The said question, however, was left open in Inderjit Kaur (supra).

* * * * * * *

21. Almost an identical question again came up for consideration before this Court in National Insurance Co.

Ltd. v. Seema Malhotra and Ors. [(2001) 3 SCC 151], a Division Bench noticed both the aforementioned decisions and analysed the same in the light of Section 64-VB of the 1938 Act. It was held :

"17. In a contract of insurance when the insured gives a cheque towards payment of premium or part of the premium, such a contract consists of reciprocal promise. The drawer of the cheque promises the insurer that the cheque, on presentation, would yield the amount in cash. It cannot be forgotten that a cheque is a bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker. A bill of exchange is an instrument in writing containing an unconditional order directing a certain person to pay a certain sum of money to a certain person. It involves a promise that such money would be paid.

18. Thus, when the insured fails to pay the premium promised, or when the cheque issued by him towards the premium is returned dishonoured

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _________________ CMA. Nos.4124/2019 - 3679/2021

by the bank concerned the insurer need not perform his part of the promise. The corollary is that the insured cannot claim performance from the insurer in such a situation.

19. Under Section 25 of the Contract Act an agreement made without consideration is void. Section 65 of the Contract Act says that when a contract becomes void any person who has received any advantage under such contract is bound to restore it to the person from whom he received it. So, even if the insurer has disbursed the amount covered by the policy to the insured before the cheque was returned dishonoured, the insurer is entitled to get the money back.

20. However, if the insured makes up the premium even after the cheque was dishonoured but before the date of accident it would be a different case as payment of consideration can be treated as paid in the order in which the nature of transaction required it. As such an event did not happen in this case, the Insurance Company is legally justified in refusing to pay the amount claimed by the respondents".

22. A contract is based on reciprocal promise. Reciprocal promises by the parties are condition

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _________________ CMA. Nos.4124/2019 - 3679/2021

precedents for a valid contract. A contract furthermore must be for consideration.

23. In today's world payment made by cheque is ordinarily accepted as valid tender. Section 64VB of the 1938 Act also provides for such a scheme.

* * * * * * *

25. Recently again in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya and Anr. [(2006) 5 SCC 192], although in the context of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, Balasubramanyan, J opined :

"It is not brought to our notice that there is any other law enacted which stands in the way of an insurance company and the insured entering into a contract confining the obligation of the insurance company to indemnify to a particular head or to a particular amount when it relates to a claim for compensation to a third party arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act. In this situation, the obligation of the insurance company clearly stands limited and the relevant proviso providing for exclusion of liability for interest or penalty has to be given effect to. Unlike the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act the Workmen's Compensation Act does not confer a right on the claimant for compensation under that Act to claim the payment

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _________________ CMA. Nos.4124/2019 - 3679/2021

of compensation in its entirety from the insurer himself".

It was further observed:-

"The law relating to contracts of insurance is part of the general law of contract. So said Roskill, L.J. in Cehave v. Bremer. This view was approved by Lord Wilberforce in Reardon Smith v. Hansen- Tangen (All ER p. 576 h ) wherein he said:

"It is desirable that the same legal principles should apply to the law of contract as a whole and that different legal principles should not apply to different branches of that law."

A contract of insurance is to be construed in the first place from the terms used in it, which terms are themselves to be understood in their primary, natural, ordinary and popular sense. (See Colinvaux's Law of Insurance , 7th Edn., para 2-01.) A policy of insurance has therefore to be construed like any other contract. On a construction of the contract in question it is clear that the insurer had not undertaken the liability for interest and penalty, but had undertaken to indemnify the employer only to reimburse the compensation the employer was liable to pay among other things under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Unless one is in a position to void the exclusion clause

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _________________ CMA. Nos.4124/2019 - 3679/2021

concerning liability for interest and penalty imposed on the insured on account of his failure to comply with the requirements of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1923, the insurer cannot be made liable to the insured for those amounts.""

26. We are not oblivious of the distinction between the statutory liability of the Insurance Company vis-`-vis a third party in the context of Sections 147 and 149 of the Act and its liabilities in other cases. But the same liabilities arising under a contract of insurance would have to be met if the contract is valid. If the contract of insurance has been cancelled and all concerned have been intimated thereabout, we are of the opinion, the insurance company would not be liable to satisfy the claim.” (Emphasis Supplied)

11. From the above ratio laid down by the Apex Court, it crystallises

that the contract of insurance is a reciprocal promise, which is to be

performed by the insurer only on the insured performing his part of the

promise. The insurance policy and the terms governing the same are the

guiding factor on the basis of which the reciprocral promise is to be honoured.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _________________ CMA. Nos.4124/2019 - 3679/2021

12. This Court also, in Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd. – Vs – Pravin

@ Ramija & Ors. (CMA No.2439/2009 – Dated 29.11.2023), following the

decision in Deddappa case (supra) has held that in the absence of a valid

insurance policy, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle

towards any accident that had happened when there was not valid insurance

policy.

13. In the case on hand, a proposal has been submitted on behalf of the

owner of the vehicle on 19.04.2014, but it had not crystallised into a policy of

insurance. The amount towards the said policy had been paid on 22.04.2014,

as is evident from the receipt issued by the insurance company. In

furtherance to the receipt of amount, policy has also been issued on

22.04.2014 and the coverage under the policy is to start from 10.00 hours on

24.04.2014 to the midnight on 23.04.2014.

14. The accident had happened on 21.04.2014 at about 6.30 p.m., at

which point of time, there was no valid insurance of coverage covering the

offending vehicle. The proposal, though was submitted on behalf of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _________________ CMA. Nos.4124/2019 - 3679/2021

owner of the vehicle on 19.4.2014, however, it is not a cover note, which

would partake the character of an insurance policy and, therefore, the

proposal cannot be extrapolated for the purpose of bringing the same within

the ambit of an insurance policy. Upon submission of a proposal, it is for the

insurer to accept the same on such terms as is necessary. In the case on hand,

the insurance company had accepted the proposal and issued the policy with

a coverage starting from 10.00 hours on 22.04.2014 prior to which point of

time, there was no valid policy. Therefore, the accident having taken place on

21.04.2014, during which point of time there was no valid insurance coverage

for the vehicle, the insurance company cannot be fastened with any liability to

pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. It

is purely for the owner of the vehicle alone to pay the compensation and the

insurance company cannot be made liable to indemnify the owner of the

vehicle by paying the claimant. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal directing

the insurance company to pay the compensation and, thereafter, recover the

same from the owner of the vehicle is wholly unsustainable and is against the

ratio laid down in Deddappa case (supra) and, necessarily, the appeal in CMA

No.4124/2019 filed by the insurance company deserves to be allowed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _________________ CMA. Nos.4124/2019 - 3679/2021

15. Insofar as the appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of

compensation is concerned, the case of the claimant is that adequate

compensation has not been awarded under the respective heads of

compensation. In all, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.9,06,000/- under

the various heads as under :-

                                       Head of Compensation           Amount awarded by
                                                                           Tribunal
                                  Loss of Income                        Rs. 8,16,000/=

                                  Loss of Love & Affection                 Rs.50,000/=
                                  Loss of Estate                           Rs.15,000/=
                                  Transportation                           Rs.10,000/--
                                  Funeral Expenses                         Rs.15,000/=
                                  TOTAL                                   Rs.9,06,000/=

16. Insofar as the compensation awarded under the heads ‘Loss of Love

and Affection’, ‘Loss of Estate’, ‘Transportation’ and ‘Funeral Expenses’ are

concerned, the said compensation are awarded on the basis of the ratio laid

down by the Apex Court and the compensation is just and reasonable and the

same cannot be said to be inadequate and, accordingly, the compensation

under the aforesaid heads are confirmed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _________________ CMA. Nos.4124/2019 - 3679/2021

17. Insofar as the compensation awarded under the head ‘Loss of

Income’ is concerned, the Tribunal has fixed the notional monthly income of

the deceased at Rs.8,000/- as the claimant had not proved the monthly

income of the deceased through any documentary evidence.

18. According to the claimant, the deceased was earning his livelihood

as a driver and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, as aforesaid, no

documents to substantiate the income has been filed and in the said

backdrop, applying the ratio laid down in the case of Syed Sadiq – Vs –

Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014 (2) SCC 735), the

notional fixed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be unreasonable or

inadequate. Further, the deduction of amount towards the personal expenses

of the deceased and the adoption of multiplier is also based on the ratio laid

down by the Apex Court in various decisions and, therefore, the quantum of

compensation arrived at under the head ‘Loss of Income’ by the Tribunal

cannot be said to be erroneous or inadequate. Accordingly, the compensation

of Rs.8,16,000/- awarded under the head ‘loss of income’ is also confirmed

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _________________ CMA. Nos.4124/2019 - 3679/2021

and the appeal in CMA No.3679/2021 is liable to be dismissed confirming the

award passed by the Tribunal.

19. In the result, the following order is passed :-

i) CMA No.4124/2019 filed by the insurance company is allowed;

ii) CMA No.3679/2021 filed by the claimant is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal.

iii) The appellant in CMA No.3679/2021 is granted liberty to proceed against the owner of the vehicle to realise the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the manner known to law.