- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED INDIA DRIVER
- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED INDIA REGISTRATION
Seema Malhotra 2001 3 SCC 151 and Deddappa v. Inderjit Kaur 1998 1 SCC 371 has been diluted by the later decisions of this Court in National Insurance Co. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the view taken by this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. He submitted that no liability can be fastened on the insurers qua third party if the policy of insurance is rendered void for want of consideration to the insurer.ħ. Mr A.K De, the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that having regard to the undisputed fact that the cheque issued by the owner of the vehicle towards the premium for insurance of the vehicle was dishonoured, the contract of insurance became void and the insurer could not be compelled to perform its part of promise under the policy. It is from this order that the present appeal has arisen.Ħ.
The High Court dismissed the insurer's appeal on 11-11-20081. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the insurer preferred an appeal before the High Court. The Tribunal in its award dated 28-6-2006 held that the claimants were entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs 6,01,244 and apportioned that amount amongst the claimants. The Tribunal, thus, held that the insurer was liable to the claimants.ĥ. The Tribunal also recorded the finding of fact on examination of the documentary and oral evidence that cancellation of policy because of non-payment of the premium was done by the insurer after the accident had taken place and intimation of cancellation was given to the owner on 21-5-2004 whereas the accident took place on 11-5-2004.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED INDIA DRIVER
Nagaraj was travelling in the bus and he fell down from the bus through the door by sudden application of brakes negligently by the driver and died due to the injuries sustained in that accident. The Tribunal on recording the evidence and after hearing the parties held that the claimants were successful in proving that on 11-5-2004 at 8.50 a.m the deceased M. The insurer raised the plea in the written statement that the insurance policy dated 14-4-2004 issued by it covering the said bus for the period 16-4-2004 to 15-4-2005 was not valid as the premium was paid through cheque and the cheque got dishonoured and, therefore, there was no liability on it to cover the third-party risk.Ĥ. The owner and the insurer contested the claim petition on diverse grounds.
The present appellant, insurer was impleaded as Respondent 2 while the owner of the bus was impleaded as Respondent 1.ģ. Respondents 1 to 3 (to be referred to as “the claimants”), filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (for short “the Tribunal”) seeking compensation of Rs 15 lakhs. He sustained grievous injuries and subsequently died. Nagaraj standing near the door fell down. At about 8.50 a.m on that day due to negligent application of brakes by the bus driver, the back door of the bus suddenly opened and M.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED INDIA REGISTRATION
Nagaraj (husband of Respondent 1 and father of Respondents 2 and 3) was travelling in a bus bearing Registration No. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave is: whether the appellant, United India Insurance Company Limited (the insurer) is absolved of its obligations to the third party under the policy of insurance because the cheque given by the owner of the vehicle towards the premium got dishonoured and subsequent to the accident, the insurer cancelled the policy of insurance?Ģ.
0 kommentar(er)
