Allahabad High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Reeta Devi And Others on 22 October, 2019
Author: Virendra Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Virendra Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Reserved on 20.09.2019 Delivered on 22.10.2019 Court No. - 68 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2257 of 2010 Appellant :- National Insurance Company Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Reeta Devi And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Saral Srivastava,Mr Amit Manohar Counsel for Respondent :- Anurag Tripathi,Poonam Dubey,Vashistha Tiwari along with Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2256 of 2010 Appellant :- National Insurance Company Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Lalmati Devi And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Saral Srivastava,Mr Amit Manohar Counsel for Respondent :- Anurag Tripathi,Poonam Dubey,Vashistha Tiwari Tiwari Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. First Appeal From Order 2257 of 2010 (National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Reeta Devi and others) against the award and order dated 24.4.2010, passed in M.A.C.P. No. 117/2001 (Smt. Reeta Devi and others vs. Anthoni John and others) and First Appeal From Order 2256 of 2010 (National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Lalmati Devi and others) against the award and order dated 24.4.2010, passed in M.A.C.P. No. 119/2001 (Smt. Lalmati Devi and others vs. Anthoni John and others), have been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act (in short ''Act'), whereby both the claim petitions, filed by the respondents-claimants (hereinafter referred to as 'claimants'), have been allowed for compensation of Rs. 5,27,900/- each along with 7.5% per annum simple interest.
2. Since both the impugned awards and orders have been arisen out from the accident caused at the same time and place by the Bus bearing registration no. UP 78 N 8663 on 23.2.2001, owned by the same respondent-owner i.e. Anthoni John, both the appeals are being decided together.
3. The brief facts, arising out of both the appeals, are that on 23.2.2001, Prasanjeet Yadav S/o Sabru Yadav, Mahendra Yadav S/o Chanchal Yadav and their friend Kishan Chauhan @ Heera Nishad S/o Aklu Nishad were coming by their motorcycle Hero Honda from Meereganj to Kinnarpati and when they reached nearby Kinnarpatti village they stopped their motorcycle and as they were talking with each other, bus no. UP 78 N 8663, owned by respondent-Anthoni John, driven by its driver rash and negligently, dashed and crushed them at about 6:30 p.m., whereby, they died on spot and their motorcycle was also damaged.
4. Claim petition no. 117/2001 (Smt. Reeta Devi vs. Anthoni John and others) filed for death of Prasanjeet Yadav by claimants, Smt. Reeta Devi and others and claim petition no. 119/2001 (Smt. Lalmati Devi and others vs. Anthoni John and others) filed for death of Heera Nishad @ Kishan Chauhan by claimants Smt. Lalmati Devi and others were allowed as above and appellant-Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants of both petitions.
5. Aggrieved by the said awards and orders, both the appeals have been preferred by the Insurance Company.
6. Heard Sri Amit Manohar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Anurag Tripathi, learned counsel for the claimants appearing in both the appeals. No one is present on behalf of the owner of the vehicle despite sufficient services of notice.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the alleged Bus bearing registration no. UP 78 N 8663 was never insured by the appellant-Insurance Company at the time of occurrence. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent-owner of the vehicle has neither filed any policy of Insurance nor any cover note before the Tribunal to prove that the alleged vehicle was insured by Insurance Company at the time of accident. Learned counsel further submitted that after the accident, the owner of the vehicle sent a back dated cheque to Lucknow office of the Insurance Company without any offer or proposal, whereas he was resident of District Kushi Nagar where office of the Insurance Company is already situated. No policy has ever been issued by the Insurance Company covering any risk of the alleged vehicle for the alleged accident. Learned counsel further submitted that neither at the time of issuing cheque nor at the time of accident, any sufficient amount was available in the bank account of owner of the alleged vehicle to honour the said cheque, which shows that no money or premium was paid by the owner to insurance company at or prior to alleged accident and despite that Tribunal made liable to the Insurance Company for the payment of compensation. Impugned awards and orders in both the claim petitions, as challenged under both the appeals, are illegal, improper and unjustified which are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikram Greentech India Ltd. And others vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (2009) 5 SCC 599, Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Raja Vasireddy Komallavalli Kamba (1984) 2 SCC 719 and Deokar Export Pvt. Ltd. vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., (2008) 14 SCC 598.
8. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing in both the appeals for claimants submitted that the impugned orders and awards passed by the Tribunal in both the claim petition are legal and valid, and requires no interference. Learned counsel further submitted that even if it is found that no insurance policy was issued, Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation awarded to claimants and recover the same from owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel placed reliance on Shamanna and Others vs. The Divisional Manager The oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. 2018 ACJ 2163 (SC), National Insurance Company ltd. vs. Abhay Singh Pratap Singh Waghela 2008 Law Suits (SC) 1329 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and others 2005 (1) JLJ 85.
9. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
10. In view of the submission made by learned counsels for the parties, the only point of issue involved in both the appeals is whether or not Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants in such cases where no policy insurance or cover note was issued for covering any risk arising out of any accident caused by the alleged vehicle, only on the basis of a cheque, issued without mentioning any details of the particular vehicle by the owner of the vehicle, and encashed by the Insurance Company after the accident.
11. Both the claim petitions were filed by the claimants for compensation under Section 140 and 160 of the Act. Various provisions of the Act put an obligation on the driver as well as on owner of the vehicle to get the vehicle insured from the authorized insurer and not to ply it without valid and effective insurance certificate. Section 145, Section 146, Section 147, Section 149 (1), Section 156 of the Act, Section 64 of VB of Insurance Act, 1938 and Section 2(a), 2(b), 2(e), 2(h) and Section 10 of Indian Contract Act are relevant at this juncture which deals with meaning, necessity, risk coverage, continuance and ingredient of insurance policy. Section 145, 146, 147, 149(1) and 156 of the Act are as follows:-
Section 145. Definitions. - In this Chapter, - (a) "authorised insurer" means an insurer for the time being carrying on general insurance business in India under the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, and any Government insurance fund authorised to do general insurance business under that Act,
(b) "certificate of insurance" means a certificate issued by an authorised insurer in pursuance of sub-section (3) of section 147 and includes a cover note complying with such requirements as may be prescribed, and where more than one certificate has been issued in connection with a policy, or where a copy of a certificate has been issued, all those certificates or that copy, as the case may be;
(c) "liability", wherever used in relation to the death of or bodily injury to any person, includes liability in respect thereof under section 140;
(d) "policy of insurance" includes "certificate of insurance";
(e)........
(f)......
(g) ..........
(Emphasis Supplied) Section146. Necessity for insurance against third party risk. -
(1) No person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of this Chapter Provided that in the case of a vehicle carrying, or meant to carry, dangerous or hazardous goods, there shall also be a policy of insurance under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991.
Explanation. - A person driving a motor vehicle merely as a paid employee, while there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle no such policy as is required by this sub-section, shall not be deemed to act in contravention of the sub-section unless he knows or has reason to believe that there is no such policy in force.
(2) .................
(3) ................. (Emphasis Supplied) Section 147. Requirement of policies and limits of liability.
(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which -
(a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and
(b) insurers the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub - section (2) -
(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily [injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle] or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place ;
(ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;
Provided that ................
(2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely :-
(a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred.
(b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand :
Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier.
(3) A policy shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Chapter unless and until there is issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate of insurance in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars of any condition subject to which the policy is issued and of any other prescribed matters; and different forms, particulars and matters may be prescribed in different cases.
(4) where a cover note issued by the insurer under the provisions of this Chapter or the rules made thereunder is not followed by a policy of insurance within the prescribed time, the insurer shall, within seven days of the expiry of the period of the validity of the cover note, notify the fact to the registering authority in whose records the vehicle to which the cover note relates has been registered or to such other authority as the State Government may prescribe.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons. (Emphasis Supplied) Section149 (1). Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks.
(1) if, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (3) of section 147 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgement or award in respect of any such liability as is requirement to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 147 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) or under the provisions of section 163 - A is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid of cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgement debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgements.
Section156. Effect of certificate of insurance. - When an insurer has issued a certificate of insurance in respect of a contract of insurance between the insurer and the insured person, then -
(a) if and so long as the policy described in the certificate has not been issued by the insurer to the insured, the insurer shall, as between himself and any other person except the insured, be deemed to have issued to the insured person a policy of insurance conforming in all respects with the description and particulars stated in such certificate; and
(b) if the insurer has issued to the insured the policy described in the certificate, but the actual terms of the policy are less favourable to persons claiming under or by virtue of the policy against the insurer either directly or through the insured than the particulars of the policy as stated in the certificate, the policy shall, as between the insurer and any other person except the insured, be deemed to be in terms conforming in all respects with the particulars stated in the said certificate.
Section 64VB Insurance Act, 1938 is as under:-
No risk to be assumed unless premium is received in advance.
(1) No insurer shall assume any risk in India in respect of any insurance business on which premium is not ordinarily payable outside India unless and until the premium payable is received by him or is guaranteed to be paid by such person in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed or unless and until deposit of such amount as may be prescribed, is made in advance in the prescribed manner.
(2) For the purposes of this section, in the case of risks for which premium can be ascertained in advance, the risk may be assumed not earlier than the date on which the premium has been paid in cash or by cheque to the insurer.
Explanation. --Where the premium is tendered by postal money order or cheque sent by post, the risk may be assumed on the date on which the money order is booked or the cheque is posted, as the case may be.
(3) Any refund of premium which may become due to an insured on account of the cancellation of a policy or alteration in its terms and conditions or otherwise shall be paid by the insurer directly to the insured by a crossed or order cheque or by postal money order and a proper receipt shall be obtained by the insurer from the insured, and such refund shall in no case be credited to the account of the agent.
(4) Where an insurance agent collects a premium on a policy of insurance on behalf of an insurer, he shall deposit with, or dispatch by post to, the insurer, the premium so collected in full without deduction of his commission within twenty-four hours of the collection excluding bank and postal holidays.
(5)The Central Government may, by rules, relax the requirements of sub-section (1) in respect of particular categories in insurance policies.
(6) The Authority may, from time to time, specify, by the regulations made by it, the manner of receipt of premium by the insurer. (Emphasis Suipplied) Section 2(a), 2(b), 2(e), 2(h) and Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act. 1872 are as under:-
2(a) When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal;
2(b) When the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted. A proposal, when accepted, becomes a promise;
2(e) Every promise and every set of promises, forming the consideration for each other, is an agreement;
2(h) An agreement enforceable by law is a contract.
Section 10. All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be void.
Nothing herein contained shall affect any law in force in India and not hereby expressly repealed by which any contract is required to be made in writing or in the presence of witnesses, or any law relating to the registration of documents.
12. Thus the aforesaid provision clearly provides that a policy for insurance includes a certificate of insurance which is issued by an authorized insurance company as required by Section 147 of the Act and also includes a cover note complying with such requirement as may be prescribed; no person is authorized to use any vehicle except as a passenger or allow any person to use it at any public place without a policy of insurance as required under the provision of Chapter XII of the Act. Section 147 specifically further provides that the policy of Insurance issued by an authorized insurer must specify the person or class of person and extent of liability incurred by the insurer in respect of death or bodly injury of any person including the owner of the goods or its authorized representative or damage to any property of third party caused by or arising out of use of the vehicle in public place. Section 149 of the Act specifically provides that the liability of insurer to cover the risk of third party only arises after the certificate of insurance issued under Sub Section 3 of Section 147 of the Act in favour of the insured i.e. owner of the vehicle. Thus, it is clear from the above mentioned provision that there must be a valid and effective insurance certificate / policy issued by an authorized insurer mentioning the particulars of vehicle, details of owner of the vehicle as well as person insured, to the extent of liability and period of its effectiveness and it is the duty of the owner of the vehicle to produce / disclose the particulars of the insurance policy before the Tribunal. In addition to above, it is also clear from the aforesaid provision of Insurance Act that no policy can be issued unless the premium has been paid and the coverage of risk starts only after payment of premium.
13. In view of provisions of Indian Contract Act (supra), it is further clear that without lawful agreement, there will be no contract and mandatory requirement of agreement of contract is that there must be meeting of mind on proposal and offer made by the parties and its acceptance before agreement.
14. In National Insurance Company ltd. vs. Abhay Singh Pratap Singh Waghela 2008 Law Suits (SC) 1329, relied by the learned counsel for the claimant, Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting the Section 64 of VB of Insurance Act, 1938 held that if the cover note was issued, the cheque issued by the owner for premium was tendered on 23.1.1995 and dishonoured but the amount of premium was accepted in cash on 30.1.1995 thereafter, the Insurance Company cannot deny its liability to pay the compensation to the third party for an accident caused on 23.1.1995.
15. In Shamanna and Others vs. The Divisional Manager The oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. 2018 ACJ 2163 (SC), National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and Others 2005 (1) JLJ 85, relied by the learned counsel for the claimant, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in case of breach of policy, the insurer is bound to pay the compensation to claimant in view of Section 149 of the Act and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
16. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, while it has been found that no policy has been issued by the appellant Insurance Company for insuring any risk of the alleged vehicle, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abhay Singh Pratap Singh Waghela (supra), Shamanna (supra), and in Swarn Singh (supra), relied by the learned counsel of claimants, is not applicable to this case.
17. In Vikram Greentech India Ltd. And others vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (2009) 5 SCC 599, Hon'ble Supreme Court in para no. 16 to 19 has held as under:-
16. An insurance contract, is a species of commercial transactions and must be construed like any other contract to its own terms and by itself. In a contract of insurance, there is requirement of uberimma fides i.e. good faith on the part of the insured. Except that, in other respects, there is no difference between a contract of insurance and any other contract.
17. The four essentials of a contract of insurance are, (i) the definition of the risk, (ii) the duration of the risk, (iii) the premium and (iv) the amount of insurance. Since upon issuance of insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the insurance policy, its terms have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer.
18. The endeavour of the court must always be to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties. The court while construing the terms of policy is not expected to venture into extra liberalism that may result in re-writing the contract or substituting the terms which were not intended by the parties. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. [General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Chandumull Jain and another, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sony Cheriyan and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal] .
19. Document like proposal form is a commercial document and being an integral part of policy, reference to proposal form may not only be appropriate but rather essential. However, the surveyors' report cannot be taken aid of nor can it furnish the basis for construction of a policy. Such outside aid for construction of insurance policy is impermissible.
18. Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Raja Vasireddy Komallavalli Kamba (1984) 2 SCC 719, Hon'ble Supreme Court in para no. 14 and 15 has held as under:-
When an insurance policy becomes effective is well- settled by the authorities but before we note the said authorities, it may be stated that it is clear that the expression "underwrite" signifies accept liability under'.
The dictionary meaning also indicates that. (See in this connection The Concise oxford Dictionary Sixth Edition p. 1267.) It is true that normally the expression "underwrite" is used in Marine insurance but the expression used in Chapter III of the Financial powers of the Standing order in this case specifically used the expression "underwriting and revivals" of policies in case of Life Insurance Corporation and stated that it was the Divisional Manager who was competent to underwrite policy for Rs 50,000 and above.
The mere receipt and retention of premium until after the death of the applicant or the mere preparation of the policy document is not acceptance. Acceptance must be signified by some act or acts agreed on by the parties or from which the law raises a presumption of acceptance.
See in this connection the statement of law in Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. XLV page 986 wherein it has been stated as:-
"The mere receipt and retention of premiums until after the death of applicant does not give rise to a contract, although the circumstances may be such that approval could be inferred from retention of the premium. The mere execution of the policy is not an acceptance; an acceptance, to be complete, must be communicated to the offeror, either directly, or by some definite act, such as placing the contract in the mail. The test is not intention alone. When the application so requires, the acceptance must be evidenced by the signature of one of the company's executive officers."
Though in certain human relationships silence to a proposal might convey acceptance but in the case of insurance proposal silence does not denote consent and no binding contract arises until the person to whom an offer is made says or does something to signify his acceptance. Mere delay in giving an answer cannot be construed as an acceptance, as, prima facie, acceptance must be communicated to the offeror. The general rule is that the contract of insurance will be concluded only when the party to whom an offer has been made accepts it unconditionally and communicates his acceptance to the person making the offer. Whether the final acceptance is that of the assured or insurers, however, depends simply on the way in which negotiations for an insurance have progressed.
(Emphasis Supplied)
19. Deokar Export Pvt. Ltd. vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., (2008) 14 SCC 598, Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting the provision of Section 64 of VB Act, 1938 has held in paras 13 and 14 as under:-
13. A policy of insurance is a contract based on an offer (proposal) and an acceptance. The appellant made a proposal. The respondent accepted the proposal with a modification. Therefore, it was a counter proposal. The appellant had three choices. The first was to refuse to accept the counter-proposal, in which event there would have been no contract. The second was to accept either expressly or impliedly, the counter-proposal of the respondent (that is respondent's acceptance with modification) which would result in a concluded contract in terms of the counter proposal. The third was to make a counter proposal to the counter-proposal of the respondent in which event there would have been no concluded contract unless the respondent agreed to such counter-counter- proposal. But the appellant definitely did not have the fourth choice of propounding a concluded contract with a modification neither proposed nor agreed to by either party. If the appellant did not agree to the policy covering the period 26.8.1988 to 25.8.1989 instead of the period 12.3.1988 to 12.9.1989, the result would never create an insurance contract effective from 30.6.1989 or any other date.
14. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that an equitable view must be taken is untenable. In a contract of insurance, rights and obligations are strictly governed by the policy of insurance. No exception or relaxation can be made on the ground of equity. (Emphasis Supplied)
20. Thus, in view of the law pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as above, and aforesaid relevant provision of Indian Contract Act, it is further clear that the contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity. For a valid contract, there must be an agreement enforceable by law and unless there is offer, proposal and acceptance which are essentials of agreement, there cannot be any agreement. In addition to it, there must be a valid and effective insurance policy or a certificate issued in favour of insured i.e. owner of the vehicle containing the details and particulars required in the said policy, and in absence thereof, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation or indemnify any person.
21. Coming to the facts of this case, record shows that the respondent-owner of the vehicle appeared before the Tribunal and filed a written statement, wherein he admitted that he is owner of the alleged vehicle UP 78 N 8663; he stated that he had issued cheque no. 738677 dated 15.2.2001 of Rs. 8,500/- and sent it through postal dak in favour of National Insurance Company Ltd. Shah Najaf Road, Lucknow along with registration certificate of the vehicle for insurance and the said cheque was encashed by the Insurance Company. He has further stated that despite several requests, insurance policy / certificate was not issued by the Insurance Company. In his additional written statement, he stated that the aforesaid cheque of Rs. 8,500/- was encashed from his current account no. 0150061087.
22. Insurance Company, in its written statement, specifically denied the issuance or existence of any insurance policy covering the risk of any accident of alleged vehicle, owned by the respondent-owner. OPW-2, Arun Kumar Katiyar, Officer of State Bank of India, Padrauna, District Khushi Nagar, filing the account statement of current account No. 01050061087 of Janta Electricals, has stated that from this account, cheque no. 00738677 dated 22.3.2001 bearing aforesaid account, issued in favour of National Insurance Company Ltd. Lucknow, was encashed on 28.3.2001.
23. The accident was happened on 23.2.2001. It is admitted fact that no insurance policy was issued either prior to the said accident or after the accident by the appellant-Insurance Company covering any risk of the alleged accident. It is not the case of the respondent-owner that on the date of accident, any premium was paid by him or any cover note was issued. He did not produce any proposal, offer or cover note whereby it can be presumed that the alleged cheque was issued by him for the insurance of the alleged Bus No. UP 78 N 8663. Merely by issuing cheque without mentioning the particulars of vehicle or its encashment by the Insurance Company, after one month of the accident it cannot be presumed that the said cheque was issued for the insurance policy of the alleged vehicle.
24. It is also pertinent to note at this juncture that respondent-owner has not assigned any reason or justification as to why he sent cheque to office situated at Lucknow without any requisition or offer of Insurance Company. He is neither resident of Lucknow nor alleged Bus was registered at Lucknow. Learned counsel for the respondent-owner has also not shown any provision of law which provides that merely issuing a cheque will amount to insurance policy.
25. Mere issuing a cheque and sending it by registered post, without any further details which are necessary for insurance policy, cannot be deemed as insurance policy as required by relevant provision of M.V. Act from another point of view because suppose if a person (owner) has more than one vehicle and he sends a cheque by post without mentioning details of any particular vehicle, how it can be presumed that such cheque was issued for premium of that particular vehicle for particular period and if one or more vehicle caused accident and how tribunal can arrive on conclusion regarding identity of vehicle and period of continuation of coverage of risk.
26. Thus in view of the above discussion, in absence of valid and effective insurance policy, Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation and only the respondent-Anthoni John, owner of the alleged vehicle No. UP 78 N 8663, is liable to pay the compensation along with the interest to the claimant-respondents of both the M.A.C.P. No. 117/2001 and 119/2001.
27. Accordingly, both the appeals F.A.F.O. No. 2256 of 2010 (National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Lalmati Devi and others) and F.A.F.O. No. 2257 of 2010 (National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Reeta Devi and others) are allowed. The judgments and awards dated 24.4.2010 passed by the Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No. 117/2001 (Smt. Reeta Devi and others vs. Anthoni John and others) and M.A.C.P. No. 119/2001 (Smt. Lalmati Devi and others vs. Anthoni John and others) are modified to the extent as discussed above. Insurance company is exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation. Registry is directed to refund the statutory amount paid by the appellant-Insurance Company, if not remitted to the Tribunal. The respondent-owner of the alleged vehicle is directed to pay the compensation awarded in both the aforesaid petitions along with up to date interest within a period of one month to claimants of both the appeals.
28. Office is directed to send back the lower court record of both the appeals along with the copy of this judgment to the Tribunal for its compliance.
Order Date :- 22.10.2019 Saurabh