Allahabad High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Smt.Laltesh Singhal And Others on 18 September, 2023
Author: Saral Srivastava
Bench: Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:179940 Court No. - 2 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 862 of 1999 Appellant :- The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Respondent :- Smt.Laltesh Singhal And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Amaresh Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- V.S. Chaudhary,Arvind Srivastava,Atul Dayal And Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 863 of 1999 Appellant :- The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Respondent :- Smt.Raj Rani Bhandari And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amaresh Sinha Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Since, these two appeals arise out of same accident and issues involved are common, therefore, they are being decided together with this common judgement.
3. The present appeals have been preferred by the appellant/insurance company against the judgement and award dated 29.04.1999 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in M.A.C. Nos.477 of 1993 and 478 of 1993 whereby, he has awarded Rs.5,17,000/- and Rs.5,12,000/- respectively as compensation to the claimants/respondents.
4. Challenging the award, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company has contended that the finding of the tribunal that the offending vehicle i.e. Jeep No.2CC/4704 was insured on the date of accident is illegal. It is submitted that the owner of the offending vehicle had paid premium by a cheque which was dishonoured and due intimation with regard to dishonour of cheque and cancellation of policy was given to the owner and the same was proved in accordance with law, yet the tribunal has fixed the liability upon the insurance company on the ground that the appellant has failed to prove that due intimation with regard to cancellation of policy was given to the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, it is submitted that since, the offending vehicle was not insured on the date of accident, the appellant should have been given a right of recovery.
5. Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the tribunal has recorded a specific finding that the appellant has failed to prove that due intimation with regard to cancellation of insurance policy has been given to the owner. Accordingly, it is submitted that the tribunal has rightly held the liability upon the insurance company to pay compensation. He further contends that even otherwise, the issue of breach of insurance policy is between the insurance company and the owner of the offending vehicle and for which, the claimant shall not suffer inasmuch as the claimant is entitled to receive a compensation from the insurance company even in case of breach of insurance policy.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The record reveals that the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company and the owner of the offending vehicle had given premium by a cheque which was dishonoured by the bank due to insufficient fund. The insurance company filed a number of documents to demonstrate that the cheque of premium was dishonoured, however, the insurance company did not bring on record any evidence to establish that due intimation of cancellation of policy was given to the owner. It is settled in law that the insurance company has to prove not only that the cheque has been dishonoured but also to prove that due intimation with regard to cancellation of policy was given to the owner. Since, the insurance company has failed to prove that due intimation of cancellation of policy has been given to the owner, therefore, the finding of the tribunal holding the liability of the insurance company is correct and based upon the settled principles of law. Accordingly, this Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the tribunal.
8. For the reasons given above, both the appeals lack merit and are accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.9.2023 SS