MITTAR SINGH Vs. GIAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment three appeals being FAO Nos. 367, 368 and 369 of 1997 are being disposed of as they arise out of the same accident and similar awards. The questions involved in all the three cases are identical.

(2.) Facts necessary for decision of these appeals are that on 25.11.1996 the claimants in all the three cases were travelling in bus No. HP -18 -4445. This bus is owned by appellant Mittar Singh. The bus was being driven by respondent No. 2 Ravinder Singh. The claimants filed separate claim petitions for grant of compensation. The owner and driver in their reply did not dispute the factum of the accident. It was averred that the accident took place due to sudden mechanical defect. It was also stated that the vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3 Oriental Insurance Company and as such the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation.

(3.) The Insurance Company in its reply took up the plea that the vehicle in question was not insured with it at the time of the accident. It was averred that cover note was issued in favour of the appellant on 19.10.1996. An amount of Rs. 12,951/ - was paid by the owner of the bus by cheque to the Insurance Company. This cheque was dishonoured when it was sent for collection. Thereafter, the Insurance Company cancelled the policy and communicated this fact to the insured vide letter dated 14.11.1996. Admittedly this letter was received by the insured on 23.11.1996. It was submitted that the insured then paid the fresh premium only on 26.11.1996 at Jagadhri. Thereafter, the vehicle was inspected and fresh policy of insurance was issued which was effective from 11.12.1996 to 10.12.1997. Thus, the stand of the Insurance Company is that on 25.11.1996 there was no insurance policy in force and as such the Insurance Company was not liable.