BAJAL ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. KUNHAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is instituted at the instance of the 3rd respondent/insurance company against the award in O.P(M.V.)No.518/2009 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vadakara. The limited challenge is against the direction issued by the Tribunal to the appellant to make payment of the amount of compensation and to recover it from the 1st respondent therein.

(2.) Brief history of the case is that, a person named Pocker died in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 6.4.2009. The person died while riding a bycycle was knocked down by a bus, allegedly due to the rash and negligent driving and over speed on the part of its driver, the 5th respondent herein, who was the 2nd respndent before the Tribunal. The 1st respondent before the Tribunal, who is the 4th respondent in the above appeal, was the registered owner of the vehicle. The appellant herein, who was the 3rd respondent before the Tribunal was the insurer of the vehicle. The dependents of the deceased (respondents 1 to 3 herein) filed the claim petition impleading the owner, driver and the insurer of the bus in question.

(3.) Before the Tribunal, the appellant filed a written statement admitting that a policy was issued with respect to the vehicle in question. But it was contended that, the said policy was cancelled with effect from the date of its inception, due to dishonour of the cheque issued for payment of the amount of premium. The Tribunal, on adjudication based on the evidence on record found that, the accident occurred to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and the owner of the vehicle being vicariously liable, has to pay the compensation awarded. On behalf of the appellant, Exts.B1 to B4 documents were produced to show that the cheque in question issued for payment of the premium was dishonoured and that the matter was intimated to the insured (owner of the bus). Ext.B4 is the office copy of the letter allegedly issued by the appellant to the insured, which is dated 16.9.2008. The contents of the said letter would indicate that, the dishonour of the cheque was intimated to the insured. It is mentioned in the letter that the contract of insurance has became void ab initio, in view of dishonour of the cheque and that the insurer is not on risk in respect of the cover note/policy/certificate of insurance. By the said letter, the insured was requested to remit the premium, in case he wants to take a fresh insurance cover. The Tribunal found that, the intimation regarding dishonour of cheque is insufficient for the insurance company to deny the liability and therefore held that the appellant is liable to indemnify the insured; but they will be having the right to recover the amount from the insured (registered owner of the vehicle). It is challenging the said finding that the present appeal is filed.