Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.43 seconds)The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sk. Ayeb Ahammed And Ors. on 20 September, 1990
5. What is contended by the appellant is that in view of the above decision of the Supreme Court there was no liability on the part of the insurer for
indemnification since the dishonouring of cheque was within the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle.
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd vs Inderjit Kaur & Ors on 8 December, 1997
But this contention is seriously opposed by counsel for the respondents by specifically pointing out that the decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ayeb Mohammed [1991] 2 ACJ 650 (SC) had been overruled by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court having three judges in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur [1998] 91 Comp Cas 306 ; AIR 1998 SC 588. In this context it would be quite appropriate to know the facts of that case which is similar to the one in hand. A bus met with an accident. Its policy of insurance was issued by the appellant on November 30, 1989. The premium for the policy was paid by cheque. The cheque was dishonoured. A letter stating that it had been dishonoured was sent by the appellant to the insured on January 23, 1990. The letter claimed that as the cheque had not been encashed, the premium on the policy had not been received and that therefore the appellant was not at risk. The premium was paid in cash on May 2, 1990, and in the meantime- on April 19, 1990, the accident took place. In these factual premise, the Supreme Court considered the submission that in view of the provisions of Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938, the appellant could not in law have assumed any risk under the policy of insurance covering the bus until the premium had been paid. The premium had not been paid inasmuch as the cheque that had been given to the appellant by the insured in payment of the premium, had been dishonoured.
G. Govindan vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Ors on 8 April, 1999
Our attention was also drawn to a decision of the Supreme Court in G. Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [1999] 97 Comp Cas 443 ; AIR [1999] SC 1398, expounding the paramount intention of the Legislature. This is evident from the following observation (page 450 of Comp Cas) : "In our opinion both under the old Act and under the new Act the Legislature was anxious to protect the third party (victim) interest. It appears that what was implicit in the provisions of the old Act is now made explicit, presumably in view of. the conflicting decisions on this aspect among the various High Courts."
Section 149 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
1