Skip to main content

The Burden Is On The Insurer To Prove That Cancellation Of Policy Has Been Intimated To Vehicle

In MACA.No. 2017 of 2013, SMT.PRASANNA.B vs KABEER.P.K. & ICICI LOMBARD MOTOR INSURANCE CO. LTD., the claimant sustained injuries in a motor accident took place on 12.08.2008. The insurer of the vehicle contested the claim petition contending that they are not liable to indemnify the owner, as the cover note issued by them for the vehicle on 16.05.2008 was cancelled on 23.05.2008, when the cheque issued by the owner towards the premium of the policy was dishonoured. The Tribunal accepted the case of the insurer and exonerated them from the liability holding that the vehicle was not covered by a policy at the time of accident. It is the said decision of the Tribunal that is under challenge in this appeal preferred before the Kerala High Court by the claimant.

First rejecting the objection to maintainability of the appeal, the High Court observed that Sub section (1) of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act contains the expression the expression 'any person aggrieved by an award' and just because the owner would be liable to pay compensation to the claimant, does not mean that only the owner would be aggrieved in such cases. In a case where the owner pays to the claimant the compensation directed to be paid or where the claimant would be in a position to realise the compensation from the owner without much difficulty, the claimant may not be aggrieved by the award. But, in cases where the claimants are not in a position to realise the compensation from the owners, they would certainly be aggrieved by the award. Even in cases where the claimants would be in a position to realise the compensation from the owners, it is common knowledge that it would be a cumbersome effort for the claimants to realise the compensation from them, while insurers would deposit the compensation payable to the claimants by default, in cases where they have liability. In the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the legislature intended to deprive the claimants in proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal a right of appeal for challenging the award exonerating the insurer from the liability to indemnify the owner. If the contention taken by the insurer is accepted, in cases where the Tribunal exonerates the insurer from the liability erroneously and the owner who is consequently made liable is not aware or otherwise prevented by circumstances from preferring an appeal challenging the exoneration of the insurer, the victim might be deprived of compensation which he/she is entitled for the loss caused on account of the accident.

On the issue of informing the insured about cancellation of policy, the Court observed that the case of the insurer is that the cancellation of the cover note was intimated by them to the owner by Ext.B3 communication sent under certificate of posting and in the light of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Prasanna v Kabeer (2018 (4) KLT 722), the insurer is certainly entitled to contend that the document must be presumed to have been received by the owner. However even the presumption attached to the delivery of an article sent by registered post in terms of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 can be rebutted by the addressee by appearing before the court as a witness and stating that he has not received the article. The burden would then shift to the party who wants to rely on the presumption to satisfy the court by leading oral or documentary evidence to prove the service of such article on the addressee [Green View Radio Service v. Laxmibai Ramji [(1990)4 SCC 497] and Kulkarni Patterns Pvt. Ltd. v. Vasant Baburao Ashtekar [(1992) 2 SCC 46]. The Court decided that he owner has managed to rebutt the presumption as to the receipt of the communication claimed to have been sent by the insurer under certificate of posting. In that event, it was obligatory for the insurer to prove the service of the postal article claimed to have been sent by them to the owner which the insurer has failed to do and therefore the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the insurer from the liability.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more