ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. K GOWRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first contention urged for the Insurer, the common appellant in these appeals, was that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal could not have made the Insurer liable on its policy effected by a 'Cover Note' subsequent to the omission of the words 'or a Cover Note' in Sub -section (4) of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by Central Act 100 of 1956. This contention is devoid of merit for the reason to be stated presently.

(2.) THE material portion of Sub -section (4), after the omission of the words 'or a Cover Note' found therein, reads thus: A policy shall be of no effect for the purpose 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....

(3.) THE second contention urged for the Insurer was that the cheque issued for payment of premium towards 'Cover Note' concerned, having been issued by a third party, the same was not encashed by the Insurer and that hence the Insurer was not liable under that 'Cover Note'. This contention is again devoid of merit as the reason now put -forth for non -encashment of the cheque is different from the reason put -forth by the Officer of the Insurer examined in the case as RW 2. The reason for non -encashment of the cheque as stated by RW 2 in his evidence, reads: The cheque is not encashed by D -3 (Insurance Company), namely on the ground that after a month they got information that the bus bad met with an accident.