Karnataka High Court
The New India Insurance Company Limited vs Gowramma on 3 December, 2008
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
THE HEGH COURT 01%' KAR.?'€A.'1'Ai<;}x AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 03"" DAY OF DI?;§i*fE:1§§:fV}.§I&2Ri'fé§$68'_ BE;<"0RE & THE HONBLE am Jfus'r1£:E%11%L%L::vT;;n1.~%<;.g;;m%§;sH%V MISCE LL_A.$iE o1.;s%§e*k1Rs*1* V.AP?E;§_'L §s; (j;i:§5s 015 %2_0;@§@1}3 * The New Ag;$urah_'§e Cé:~.. 'L.":_d.j, Mission:._R0§:d,_.Ba;§ga1Qre»2?;. " V Thraugh"i%:sf;Regi(j:':aI"{3i?Zfi;ié, }¥f' c§'§2--4i3:;_,:i'i}z1if.§jBiziidiiig fiuifiéxe, fvIi:~:-siozz RG3:-3, ' B3f1g€fli?{¢~550{}27. Rep. by it:;VI7)e:§m§t§z -Mazzager Sri.Kn_ShanLibh0gga'e¥ ]~ ...APPELLANT »' S:'i,]V3.AC'.S§¢tharama Rae & Sri.R.Navean Kuman Adm.) _ '% 1, Siiétfiowranzma Agféd abet}: 55 years, " ':'WfF0 iaie Yeilappa.
H 2. S1nt-Gectha?
zfiggsd about 35 years?
B50 late Ye-Kappa.
3. Smt.Lakshn1i, Aged 35013:: 33 years, Dim late Ye§1ap;*;a/ V the Izzsurancc comgany. Accordingly, sought t"ui' t{:?.shift the iiabélity an the owner.
5. Per-mantra, the 3e:arx'1;':d :_.CT-:>!;u2Se:-]_ 'a;ipeéiri'i:.g1il_'&r than "
respezzéezztssclai znants stfbfizifitcé " A . Mg-iilcqila \ \ éwag issued towards t}1e;_.;3remé;1::aVVV::fiz1:é2§;3.t on the cheque issued, a cave? :10tétf+%a;s §§vsf;1er and subseqtieratiy, when fhfz: «+§§§que injurer étaty was ':33 and that amass the cover €11' {:anC.eHcd the liability is theft: {:3 t1*:'t?_ff§1L§i':z1*£m;;é5"«<:t>mpan}' to pay the same. It is 3139 ;i"i1rt}1er.écmAte:23edx'théi in the siméiar circumgtances; the Apex :V§rs«._§he dfiéision repozfcd in 1998 AC} }23 in the case cf 'AVjT;;1'S.£3raz3ce Co. Ltd, Vs. Indexjit Kaur and others has he}-éi thén when mice the insurance cam any has issued a liar x «V P W .
AA ' ._t<3 éover the vehicie withaut receiving the premium by virtue of "the provision under Sections 147(5) afié i49{1§ 0f the Mata? Vehicies Act, 1988 the Inszurazzae eampangs becames iiabie to indenirsify fer the third party Eiabiiity. Accordirzgijs' ctmtanded 9179*, peiicy because it did not reeaive the preiminm. its remedies: in this bvehaif fay against the insumd. IE was fi2e__iz2surance campany itseif who was respcansébie for its }1re:'iié3.§h.:;§fits. It had issued the poiicy Of insurance upcm inwards the premium. The pzitii insuranca serves must cleariy ;3%€vaiE._ over 'in3ier6s%"v<>f"~t§3c Insurance company.
"2&:'}1i%I3"&1dr;3ittcd}y natice was issued to the"<iia«ngfj;':regé3'di;3g_hi-i$hé:ii:'st:s? 0f csheque subsequeizt ta the acéidefii a31.dV':thé'vpf«i:-zfii}An1 is neat paid it is far {has Iizsurance cngnpaziff ft) «;:.<é'l1é€;£ Vtéie premmni azid it may. be Q17 {sf " 'L'~c%3;fcf1*act ._be'h,veéii" the Insurance ezzmpany ané the awner- H(3E$:fER;'éf,:"-S6' far as flue payment sf cG§1pensa€io1IE'&z&rard is ""«--cun.;iér;1cd the Iiabiity is on the Insurance <;{m1pany in View cf AA 4t};e '"f.i'act that the vaiid poiicy being issued has nut been 'éianceiied The I'B€€}'ir"f31'}='" ef the ammmt front: the (miner far satisfying the award wfillid be degnending can $343 facts and Girsumstanfies 0f 1:316 case, It is for the Insure: to pmcced in Glég.
id 'in_tei.r«es'V£'« théf a'*p§;1}ic'y of accordaxzce with law as per the: observatinns made in __paragraph. 9 of the judgment ofthe Ape}: Court reparteci £23 rcfarred to above wherein it is hsld company was not absoived Gfzu under the policy becausg: diz;14":1§.:itV.A.1"eceif.:§=.:é. remedies in this behaif E93' V_t§'1e 'i'iis§5i:re §il.' § H
9. Acc.0vrding};g,-- .aj;:p€%1} :i.S' Bf. The ammmt in d6§S}0Si_f,b;:: d*isbu'rse1n£:nt.
Sdf Tudgé