UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. BASHIR AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant United referred to as 'the Tribunal' in short) in India Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred this file No. 55/Claims of 1999 entitled Bashir civil first miscellaneous appeal under sec- Ahmed v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. tion 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 10.10.2003 passed 2. The brief and admitted facts of the by the Presiding Officer of Motor Acci- case are that the claimant-respondent No. dents Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter 1 herein Bashir Ahmed received grievous injuries as a result of hit by a rashly and negligently driven truck bearing registration No. JKC 2799 by its driver respondent No. 3 on 9.1.1998. He preferred a claim of Rs. 14,70,000 as compensation from the driver, owner of the truck and insurance company with which the said truck was insured. The owner and driver of the truck did not contest the claim but the insurance company, appellant herein, contested the said claim petition on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the owner and the insurance company. It is alleged by the insurance company that the owner of the vehicle got his vehicle insured with the appellant insurance company on 28.4.1997 and a policy No. 111407/24/1/ 126/97 was issued which was valid from 28.4.1997 to 27.4.1998. Premium was paid through a cheque which was dishonoured by the banker and as such no premium was received by the insurance company. The insurance company had cancelled the insurance policy on 15.7.1997, as such the insurance company appellant is not liable to indemnify the insured. After trial the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 1,71,000 along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum vide impugned order. Being aggrieved by this award, the appellant insurance company has preferred this appeal.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 1-claimant and have also perused the record of the case.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is twofold, namely, that the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation amount on the ground that no premium was received by the insurance company from the insured and there was no privity of contract between them and quantum of compensation is not properly assessed by the Tribunal. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No. 1, has contended that there is no evidence on the file to show that the intimation in respect of cancellation of insurance policy was sent to the owner nor the regional transport officer has been informed about the same. She has further stated that the insurance company is not able to trace the owner and the insurance policy remained with the owner of the vehicle. It is further contended that the compensation has been properly assessed by the Tribunal.