SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Guj) 506

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :RAVI R.TRIPATHI
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
MINOR MAMTABEN B RATHOD -THRObyassingh BANSISINGH RATHOD - Respondent
APPEAL FROM ORDER158 of 2003
Decided On : 08/13/2004

Advocates Appeared: K.K.TRIVEDI, N.M.KAPADIA, P.V.NANAVATI, Vibhuti Nanavati

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166, section 147 (5) and section 149 (1) - Insurance Act, 1938 - Section 64-VB - Contract Act - Section 65 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 89 - Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 - subsection (1) of section 20, subsection (2) of section 21 - Insurance Act - section 64-VB - Facts of the case are that on an accident took place when a truck bearing registration ran over a minor girl causing her severe injuries - Guardian of minor girl filed aforesaid claim petition under section of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal claiming compensation of alleging that the truck in question was run in a rash and negligent manner by original opponent Insurance company after served with summons appeared through an advocate in the District Court at matter was settled a compromise was entered into between learned advocate of the minor-claimant and the advocate of the Insurance Company - An amount of was agreed to be paid, by way of compensation, to the by the Insurance Company with a condition that the Insurance Company would thereafter stand exonerated from all liabilities even if the proceedings are further pursued against the owner and driver of the insured vehicle - Compromise was recorded by the Tribunal on and by order dated a decree was passed in terms of the compromise to the effect that, the Insurance company is liable to pay - Insurance Company was ordered to deposit, the said amount within three months from the date of the order - It was also ordered in case the Insurance company fails to deposit the said amount within the stipulated time, the claimant would be entitled to receive interest at the rate of till the amount is realised by the claimant - It was also provided that, on deposit of the amount - Tribunal will pass necessary orders of disbursement - Company while verifying the compliance of section of the Insurance Act found that, the policy was, for the period from and that the policy was the first policy issued in of the insured - It was also found that, the insured had tendered proposal form on along with dated drawn on Cooperative Bank Branch by the insured - When the said was presented by the appellant-Insurance company for collection through its bankers - Held, Claimant submitted that the decision of the Court in the matter of National Insurance SC in fact helps the claimant and not the Insurance Company so far as third party is concerned - Learned advocate submitted that the only portion which supports the case of the Insurance company is only referred to and relied upon by the learned advocate of the company - He submitted that in fact the Court has laid down in absolutely clear terms that so far as third parties are concerned the Insurance Companies are liable on account of statutory provisions in view of the initial agreement entered into between the insured and the company concerned - Learned advocate for the claimant, rightly pointed out that the decision of the Court is in of the Insurance Company only to the extent it relates to the claim of the insured - But so far as the third party is concerned it was made clear before the Apex Court which is recorded by the Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance AIR SC - Relevant part reads as under - Avoid confusion we may point out that the insurance company has no dispute that the claims made by the kith and kin of the insured for the injuries sustained by them in the accident including the claims made by the legal representatives of the deceased in such accident would also be treated as third party claims - Court has observed in the matter of National Insurance is no dispute that the insurer is liable as against third parties because it is covered by the statutory provisions contained in Chapter X of the Motor Vehicles Act - Court finds no substance in the Appeal From Order filed by the Insurance Company and the same is dismissed with cost which the Insurance Company shall deposit with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - On deposit of the same it shall be paid to the claimants - Ordered Accordingly.

RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.

( 1 ) UNITED India Insurance Company Limited, original defendant no. 2 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 37 of 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the claim petition") has approached this Court by way of this Appeal From Order being aggrieved of order dated 27. 02. 2003, below Exhibit 19.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that, on 03. 06. 2001 an accident took place when a truck bearing registration No. GJ-5-V 3080 ran over a minor girl causing her severe injuries. The guardian of minor girl Mamtaben Byassingh Rathod filed, aforesaid claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Main), Surat (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") claiming compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs, alleging that the truck in question was run in a rash and negligent manner by original opponent no. 1, i. e. Anilbhai Chhanabhai Chowdhary. The Insurance company after served with summons on 26. 02. 2002 appeared through an advocate. A Lok Adalat was organised on 21. 04. 2002 in the District Court at Surat. In that Lok Adalat, matter was settled, a compromise was entered into, between learned advocate of the minor-claimant and the advocate of the Insurance Company. An amount of Rs. 1,95,000/-, was agreed to be paid, by way of compensation, to the claimant, by the Insurance Company with a condition that the Insurance Company would thereafter stand exonerated from all liabilities, even if the proceedings are further pursued against the owner and driver of the insured vehicle. The compromise was recorded by the Tribunal on 21. 04. 2002 and by order dated 22. 04. 2002 a decree was passed in terms of the compromise, to the effect that, the Insurance company is liable to pay Rs. 1,95,000/-. The Insurance Company was ordered to deposit, the said amount, within three months from the date of the order. It was also ordered that, in case the Insurance company fails to deposit the said amount within the stipulated time, the claimant would be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 9% till the amount is realised by the claimant. It was also provided that, on deposit of the amount, the Tribunal will pass necessary orders of disbursement.

( 3 ) THE Insurance Company while verifying the compliance of section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, 1938, found that, the policy was, for the period from 04. 04. 2001 to 03. 04. 2002 and that the policy was the first policy issued in favour of the insured. It was also found that, the insured had tendered proposal form on 03. 04. 2001 along with cheque dated 03. 04. 2001, drawn on surat Nagrik Cooperative Bank, Adajan Branch, by the insured-Valjibhai Keshavbhai Bharwad. When the said cheque was presented by the appellant-Insurance company, for collection, through its bankers, on 09. 04. 2001, the same was returned, on 11. 04. 2001, with an endorsement, "insufficient funds". Thus, the cheque, given by the insured owner (original opponent no. 2) of vehicle bearing registration no. GJ-5-V 3080 was dishonoured. The Insurance Company, therefore, field an application-Exhibit 19, setting out all these facts and contending that, there was no compliance of section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, 1938. It is also contended by the Insurance Company that, on dishonour of the cheque on 11. 04. 2001 an intimation was given, by Registered Post A. D. letter on 12. 04. 2001 to the insured. But then the said Registered Post A. D. letter was returned to the Insurance Company, by the Postal authorities with endorsements, "not found on 16, 17, and 18th April 2004" and "address is incomplete". This second endorsement did not bear any date. The Insurance Company prayed in this application (Exhibit 19), for cancellation of the compromise entered into on 21. 04. 2002 in Lok Adalat and the award made on the basis of the compromise.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal rejected this application holding that the application, is in the form of a review application for quashing and setting aside the award pass



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top