Bombay High Court Upholds Pay and Recover Direction Against Insurance Company in Motor Accident Claim — Policy Cancellation Due to Cheque Dishonour Does Not Absolve Insurer's Liability to Third Party. The insurer must pay compensation to the claimants and then recover from the owner under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Prosecution
  • 46
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case arises from a motor accident on 18th May 2000, where the deceased Laxman Kadve was driving his jeep when a travel bus driven rashly and negligently collided with his jeep, causing his death. The legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur. The insurance company, National Insurance Co. Ltd., contested the claim on the ground that the policy issued to the owner of the bus had been cancelled prior to the accident due to dishonour of the cheque issued for premium. The cheque was returned unpaid with endorsement 'not arranged for', and the policy was cancelled on 11th January 2000. The insurance company argued that it was not liable to pay compensation as the vehicle was not insured on the date of accident. The Tribunal, however, directed the insurance company to first pay the awarded amount and then recover the same from the owner of the offending bus. The insurance company appealed against this direction. The High Court, after considering the facts and submissions, upheld the Tribunal's order, holding that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to third parties even if the policy was cancelled due to dishonour of cheque, as the cancellation was not communicated to the third party. The court affirmed the 'pay and recover' direction, allowing the insurance company to recover the amount from the owner.

Headnote

A) Motor Accident Claims - Pay and Recover - Insurance Policy Cancellation - Cheque Dishonour - The insurer is liable to pay compensation to third parties even if the policy was cancelled due to dishonour of cheque, as the cancellation was not communicated to the third party. The insurer must pay the awarded amount and then recover from the owner. (Paras 1-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to third parties when the policy was cancelled due to dishonour of cheque before the accident, and whether the direction to pay and recover from the owner is justified.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and award dated 24th December 2019 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-3, Nagpur in MACP No. 501 of 2000 is confirmed. The appellant/insurance company is directed to pay the awarded amount to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner of the offending bus.

Law Points

  • Motor Accident Claims
  • Pay and Recover
  • Insurance Policy Cancellation
  • Cheque Dishonour
  • Liability of Insurer
  • Third Party Rights
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (BOM) (07) 227

First Appeal (FA) No. 466 of 2012

2019-07-09

M.G. Giratkar

Shri D.N. Kukday for appellant, Ms. Monali Pathade for respondent Nos.1 to 6

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Wardhaman Nagar Branch, Through the Regional Manager, Nagpur Regional Officer

Suman Wd/o Laxmanrao Kadve and others (original petitioners) and Shri Dilip Singh Chawla (owner of offending bus)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against judgment and award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal directing insurance company to pay compensation and recover from owner.

Remedy Sought

Insurance company sought to set aside the direction to pay compensation on ground that policy was cancelled due to cheque dishonour.

Filing Reason

Insurance company challenged the Tribunal's order directing it to pay compensation to claimants and recover from owner.

Previous Decisions

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in MACP No. 501 of 2000 directed appellant to pay awarded money and then recover from owner.

Issues

Whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to third parties when the policy was cancelled due to dishonour of cheque before the accident? Whether the direction to pay and recover from the owner is justified?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant/Insurance Company argued that policy was cancelled on 11th January 2000 due to dishonour of cheque, hence no liability on date of accident. Respondents/Claimants argued that insurance company is liable to pay compensation to third parties and then recover from owner.

Ratio Decidendi

The insurance company is liable to pay compensation to third parties even if the policy was cancelled due to dishonour of cheque, as the cancellation was not communicated to the third party. The insurer must pay the awarded amount and then recover from the owner.

Judgment Excerpts

This is an appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 24th December, 2019 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal3, Nagpur in MACP No. 501 of 2000, thereby directing the appellant to first pay the awarded money and then recover the same from the owner of the offending travel bus.

Procedural History

Claim petition filed by legal heirs of deceased before MACT, Nagpur. Insurance company filed written statement denying liability. Tribunal directed pay and recover. Insurance company appealed to High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Pay and Recover Direction Against Insurance Company in Motor Accident Claim — Policy Cancellation Due to Cheque Dishonour Does Not Absolve Insurer's Liability to Third Party. The insurer must pay compensation to the claima...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Arbitral Award in Stock Broker Dispute — No Interference Under Section 34 of Arbitration Act as Award is Not Perverse or Contrary to Public Policy. Court upholds arbitral tribunal's concurrent findin...