K SARASWATI Vs. ARIF TAMSIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present claimants' appeal has been filed challenging the award dated 29.04.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. 164/2005 allowing the claim of the claimants to the extent of Rs. 8,23,000 on account of the death of K. Shrikant Rao. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.10.2002 when deceased K. Shrikant Rao was riding his Luna bearing registration No. MP 24D-0831 and was coming towards Charoda, he was-hit from behind by Matador bearing registration No. MP-26 D 3538 and sustained grievous injury leading to his death in Sector-9 hospital Bhilai. Appellants/claimants put forth their claim before the Tribunal being the LRs. of the deceased K. Shrikant Rao to the tune of Rs. 27,86,000 but after considering all aspects of the case the Tribunal awarded Rs. 8,23,000 in favour of the claimants/appellants. Though claim of the appellants has been accepted by the Tribunal, Insurance Company/respondent No. 2 has been exonerated of its liability on the ground that the vehicle was not duly insured on the date of incident i.e. 17.10.2002 and there was no privity of contract between the insured and the insurer.

(2.) In the present appeal though the appellants have also prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount, main thrust is on the point where Insurance Company has been exonerated.

(3.) Counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal has erred in law in exonerating the Insurance Company of its liability. He submits that on 4.12.2001 the cheque was issued by the respondent No. 1 namely Arif Tamsil - the owner of the offending vehicle to get his vehicle insured and accordingly cover note Ex. D-1 was issued on that day itself covering the risk from 4.12.2001 till 2.12.2002 and the accident occurred on 17.10.2002 i.e. within the period when the vehicle of respondent No. 1 was duly insured. He submits that intimation of dishonour of cheque was never given to respondent No. 1 as required under the law and furthermore the intimation was also not given to the R.T.O. Which is mandatory under the law. He submits that had intimation been given to respondent No. 1 Arif Tamsil regarding cheque being bounced in the natural course respondent No. 1 would have insured its vehicle. He placed his reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company V. Indrajeet Kaur,1988 AIR(SCW) 183, in the matter of New India Assurance Company V. Rula, 2000 AIR(SCW) 788 and in the matter of United India Insurance Company V. Laxmappa and Others, 2012 5 SCC 234.