Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Shri B, N. Malhotra, counsel for petitioner; Shri N. D. Singhal, counsel for claimants; Shri D. K. Katarc, counsel for the owner and driver of the truck, and Shri S. S. Bansal, counsel for NICO, were heard.

7. Shri Malhotra placing reliance on Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 (for short, the 'Insurance Act') and a decision of the apex Court in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ayab Mohammed, 1991 ACJ 650 : 1991 (2) TAC 375 and a single Bench decision of this Court in United India Insurance Co. v. Babu Shah, 1991 (2) MPWN 124, raised an important question whether before saddling any liability on the insurer the Tribunal was required to consider if the vehicle was duly insured in accordance with law, and whether mere issuance of cover note was sufficient to cover the risk or whether the risk is covered only when premium is received, as is provided in Section 64VB of the Insurance Act. It was contended that as the cheque issued against the cover note was dishonoured, there was no payment and no risk, and in such circumstances, insurer is not liable to pay either the amount of interim or final award.

8. In our opinion, the contention raised is of vital importance and deserves consideration. Before we deal with the question, we may make it clear that it is not a case where the insurer is avoiding the liability covered by the terms of the policy on any of the defences available under Section 149(2) of the Act (correspondent to Section 96 of the Old Act). Where a plea of avoiding the liability or the cancellation of the policy is raised on any or more of the grounds as contemplated under Section 149(2) of the Act, the Insurer/company has to pay the amount of the award forthwith and any objection to the ultimate liability of the Insurance Company may, thereafter, be investigated and enquired into while dealing with the main application and making the award in terms of Section 168 of the Act (corresponding to Section 110-B of the old Act) including the liability of the Insurance Company, which is the consistent view of this Court. See Mohammed Ilias v. Bodhani Bai, 1991 JLJ 2 : (AIR 1991 MP 5), National Insurance Company v. Radhelal, 1990 (II) MPWN 131 : (AIR 1990 MP 383) and Dwarika v. Biso, 1990 (II) MPWN 173 : (AIR 1990 MP 258).

14. The cases relied on by Shri N.D. Singhal, counsel for the claimants viz., Mohammed Iliyas (supra); Radhelal (supra), Dwarika (supra); New India Assurance Company v. Laxmansingh, 1990 (II) MPWN 197; Oriental Insurance Company v. Band-han, 1988 (II) MPWN 104; Hafiz Mohammed v. Kalloo, 1987 (II) MPWN 160; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 1988 ACJ 612; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Surjit Singh, 1988 ACJ 1122 : (AIR 1989 NOC 83 (J&K) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Savithri (1990) II ACC 505; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K. Gowramma (1989) I ACC 200; National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Haidar Ali, 1992 (l) TAC 214, are distinguishable. In the decision of Karnataka High Court in case of K. Gowramma (supra) the Insurance Company after the receipt of cheque as valid payment towards premium from the insured for the cover Note issued, did not present the cheque for encashment; therefore, it was observed therein that the Insurance Company cannot contend that the cheque was not presented for encashment and non-presentation of the cheque cannot have the effect of absolving the Insurer of the liability under the Cover Note issued pursuant to the receipt of such cheque. The decision of this Court in case of Hafiz Mohammad (supra) is also of no help to the claimants, as in that case though the defence was raised that the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured with the insurer, the Court observed that it has to be decided at the time of final decision, and the amount of interim compensation is to be paid by the insurer, but for that defence raised, from the facts of the case, it is clear, that the Insurance Company did not even file any reply to the application Under Section 140 nor placed any material, and the owner of the truck filed a photostat copy of the cover note of the insurance policy. In the said background of the facts, the Court observed that as the insurance company did not avail of the opportunity to file reply to the said application, there was nothing on record to assume that the said truck was not insured at the time when the accident took place. The other decisions relied are not on the point and are of no help to the claimants.