NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RESHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant National InsuranceCo. Ltd. impugns the judgment dated 3-4-2010 whereby a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act ('the Act') preferred by the respondent No.1 (Reshmi), for having suffered injuries in an accident which took place on 17-7-2004, was allowed and she was granted a compensation of RS.87,178.

(2.) THE defence raised by the appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. is that the policy had been cancelled due to which it was not liable to indemnify the insured, was rejected by Tribunal relying on a judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sandhya Devi 2009 ACJ1867 (HP), which in turn relied on Daddappa v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2008 (1) ALT 38 (SC) = 2008 (1) An. W.R. 156 (SC) = 2008 (1) SCJ 186 =2008 ACJ 581 (SC); National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Seema Malhotral 2001 ACJ 633 (SC);new India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rula 2000 ACJ 630 (SC); and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur 1998 ACJ 123 (SC).

(3.) THE question of negligence and the quantum of compensation has not been disputed by the appellant insurance company. The learned counsel for the appellant heavily relies on the case of Daddappav. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. v. Ltd., (supra), to contend that once the insurance policy was cancelled on account of dishonour of cheque, the insurance company had no liability. It is urged that Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur, 1998 ACJ 123 (SC), was distinguished in Daddappa's case (supra) where it was held that "the dicta laid down therein clarifies that if on the date of accident the policy subsists, then only the third party would be entitled to avail the benefit thereof."