The judgment affirms that insurance coverage is void if the premium payment is dishonored, relieving the insurer of liability despite concurrent negligence.

COMMON JUDGMENT

These two appeals are against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ariyalur in M.C.O.P.No.119 of 2019, dated 25.10.2021.

(i) C.M.A.No.669 of 2022, filed by the Insurance Company, challenging both liability as well as quantum of compensation.

(ii) C.M.A.No.2014 of 2022, filed by the claimants, challenging the order of the Tribunal exonerating the 4th respondent/insurance company instead of ordering “pay and recover”.

2 . The gist of the case leading to the appeals:-

The claimants are the wife and minor son of late Balaji. On 09.10.2016, when Balaji was driving along with his wife and son, travelling in a Taxi bearing Reg.No:KA-05-AE-1681 from Bangalore to Kumbakonam, near Karukkai village, Andimadam on the Jayamkondam-Virudhachalam highways, at about 6.30 hours, a 12-wheeler lorry bearing No:TN-52-B-5070, coming from the opposite side driven rashly by its driver at heavy speed graced the side body of the Taxi, in the impact the Taxi capsized and Balaji died on the spot.

The other occupants in the Taxi sustained injuries. Alleging negligence on the driver of the truck, the claim petition by the wife of the deceased along with her minor son and parent- in-laws filed seeking compensation of Rs.2,02,00,000/-. The respondents in the petition are the owners of the vehicles involved in the said accident and their respective insurers.

3. The first respondent is the owner of the lorry bearing Reg No:TN-52-B-5070. The 2nd respondent is the insurer of the lorry. The first respondent remained exparte. The 2nd respondent filed counter stating that the claim petition contains distorted version about the accident. The driver of the Taxi was at absolute fault and dashed against the rear side of the lorry after crossing the car cabin. The Motor Vehicle report for the vehicles will clearly show that the impact for the taxi was on its front and for the lorry on the rear. Thus, the offending vehicle is the taxi. Furthermore, F.I.R was registered against the driver of the Taxi for causing death due to his rash and negligent driving.

4. The 3rd respondent is the owner of the Taxi bearing Reg.No:KA-05-AE-1681. In its counter, the 4th respondent, denies valid insurance coverage and also blaming the driver of the lorry for negligence. According to this defendant, the lorry being the 12-wheeler goods carrier vehicle, its driver without diligence recklessly, in violation of the traffic rules proceeding from South to North rashly and dashed the taxi ignoring signals. The taxi driver to avoid the collusion turned to his left extremely. Despite his best effort, hit the long-chassis lorry on its rear side. The registration of FIR on the basis of the complaint given by the driver of the lorry. Taking advantage of the absence of the occupants of the taxi who were bereaved over the death of Balaji, given the false complaint against the taxi driver. The police failed to investigate the case properly. Hence, the respondents 1 and 2 alone liable to pay compensation.

5. Further, it was contended that the cheque given by the owner of the lorry for payment of the insurance policy premium got dishonoured and the policy was cancelled with intimation to the vehicle owner and the concerned Regional Transport Office. Hence, there was no valid contract of insurance between the 3rd respondent the owner of the taxi and the 4th respondent. The driver of the taxi had no valid driving licence and the taxi did not have fitness certificate.

6. Before the Tribunal, two witnesses for the petitioners/claimants (P.W1 & P.W2) examined and 18 documents (Ex.P1