RAMCHARAN GOYAL Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has arisen out of order dated 7. 7. 1994 passed by the First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Shivpuri, whereby the claim of the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 30,000/- has been dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY narrated, the facts are that the plaintiff was the owner of bus No. UTB 3891. It was got insured on 13. 2. 1987 with the defendant and a cover note was issued. It met with an accident on 12. 5. 1987 when it dashed a culvert in its attempt to save a truck ahead of Pohri in between village Karahal. An intimation in this regard was given in the police station at once and on 13. 5. 1987 to the inspector of the defendant. On the plaintiff's report a surveyor went on spot on 14. 5. 1987. On 22. 5. 1987 a surveyor also went from Gwalior and made a final survey of the bus. The insurance papers, permit, licence, etc. , were demanded which were immediately given at the site. The surveyor estimated the claim of Rs. 30,000/- in his report and submitted it to the office at Gwalior. The plaintiff got the repairs done but the defendant did not pay the claim and hence a notice was given and suit was filed. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff had given the amount of premium through cheque No. 22180 dated 13. 2. 1987 on the Central Bank of India, Branch Shivpuri and a cover note covering the risk for the period from 13. 2. 1987 to 12. 2. 1988 was issued. It was, however, issued on the condition of receipt of the amount of premium. When the cheque was presented for collection it was dishonoured. Consequently, a letter dated 22. 4. 1987 was sent to the plaintiff intimating him that in the absence of the payment of premium the cover note issued stood ineffective right from the beginning and the plaintiff could deposit premium afresh along with bank charges either in cash or by demand draft at Gwalior office in order to obtain a fresh risk cover. The plaintiff had no cause of action. There was no contract of insurance as the premium had not been paid. The suit was liable to be dismissed. The learned trial court after considering the entire material accepted defendant's case and dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, this appeal has been preferred.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that no information was given by the defendant when the cheque was bounced. There was a cover note covering the period from 13. 2. 1987 to 12. 2. 1988 and hence the defendant was liable to pay the amount.