Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikram Singh And Another vs Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company ... on 17 September, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.4732 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision : September 17, 2013
Vikram Singh and another
.....Appellants
Versus
Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited and others
......Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH
Present: Mr.S.K.Yadav, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr.Ravinder Arora, Advocate
for respondent No.1 - Insurance Company.
Mr.J.P.Sharma, Advocate for
respondents No.2 to 5.
NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)
This appeal has been filed by driver and owner of Jeep bearing No.HR-66-1837 (for short `the offending vehicle') against the Award dated May 06, 2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (for short `the Tribunal').
2. Bhoop Singh died in a vehicular accident on January 01, 2006 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Vikram Singh - appellant No.1.
3. First Information Report (Exhibit P-3) was lodged by the Police and post mortem examination (Exhibit P4) was conducted on the dead body of Bhoop Singh.
4. Widow, two children and mother of Bhoop Singh filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal. The claimants arrayed driver, owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle as respondents No.1 to 3, respectively. The Tribunal FAO No.4732 of 2009 (O&M) [2] awarded compensation of Rs.4,16,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. The Insurance Company was exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation, but the appellants, that is, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle were directed to pay the same.
5. In appeal before this Court, the sole question arises, as to whether the offending vehicle was insured with Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited - respondent No.1 or not at the time of the accident.
6. Per the claimants, the vehicle was insured vide cover note Exhibit A-1 on the date of alleged accident, but the same was not considered by the Tribunal on the ground that the cheque issued by Sanjay Yadav with regard to the payment of premium amount to the Insurance Company was dis-honoured. Sanjay Yadav was an authorised agent of the Insurance Company.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that a perusal of the cover note Exhibit A-1 shows that the offending vehicle was duly insured by its owner Hawa Singh on July 26, 2005 and it was valid till July 25, 2006. The accident took place on January 01, 2006. The amount of premium (Rs.10,679/-) was paid in cash to Sanjay Yadav, who was none-else, but the authorised agent of the Insurance Company. The cheque, which was dis-honoured was not issued by Hawa Singh, but by Sanjay Yadav in favour of the Insurance Company. If it was dis- honoured, as per the notice issued to Hawa Singh (Annexure P-2) by the Insurance Company, then, Hawa Singh is not to be blamed. It was an internal matter between the Insurance Company and its authorised agent Sanjay Yadav. Hawa Singh - appellant was not at all at fault, because he had paid the entire premium amount to the authorised agent of the Insurance Company. In the circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the vehicle was not insured. Hence, the question is answered holding that the offending vehicle was insured on the day of accident.
FAO No.4732 of 2009 (O&M) [3]8. In view of above, this appeal is allowed and the Award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the insurer - respondent No.1 from its liability to pay the compensation, is set aside. The Insurer is directed to pay the amount of compensation within sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
September 17, 2013 ( NAWAB SINGH ) `gian' JUDGE Refer to Reporter : YES