Bombay High Court
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusTULTURAM LARKHU RAM JAISWAL AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The insurer can recover the compensation from the vehicle owner as the cancellation of the policy was not proven.
Summary
The appellant, United India Insurance Co., claimed compensation for a motor accident that occurred on 27 December 2000. The insurer argued that the insurance contract had been cancelled because a cheque for the premium was dishonoured and an intimation of cancellation had been sent to the vehicle owner and the RTO on 15 November 2000. The appellant contended that the tribunal erred by not considering the intimation, cancellation memo, and the returned cheque. No respondents appeared before the court. The judge held that the insurer had not established the cancellation and therefore could recover the compensation from the vehicle owner. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed and the earlier order was modified to permit recovery from the owner, after which the appeal was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the insurance contract existed at the time of the accident on 27 December 2000.
- Whether the insurer is entitled to recover the compensation awarded by the tribunal from the vehicle owner.
- Whether the tribunal erred in not considering the intimation of cancellation, cancellation memo, and the dishonoured cheque.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- insurance contract
- policy cancellation
- motor accident
- compensation
- evidence
- Motor Vehicles Act
Judgment
LSP 1 901 fa 2351.07.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
First Appeal No. 2351 of 2007
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. … Appellant
V/s.
Shri Tulturam Larkhu Ram Jaiswal
and others … Respondents.
Mr. Amol Gatne Advocate for the appellant.
None for the Respondents.
CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J
DATE : 1st September 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned Advocate Shri Gatne for the Appellant.
2. The only issue advanced by Mr. Gatne is the accident took
place on 27th December 2000 whereas intimation was given to the
Digitally
signed by
LATA
SUNIL
LATA SUNIL
PANJWANI
PANJWANI Date:
2026.09.03
insured/owner of the vehicle and the RTO on 15 th November 2000
13:16:43
+0530
that cheque issued towards the premium was dishonoured and
according to him when the accident took place, contract of insurance
has not come into existence. He tried his level best to convince me
on two aspects:
(i) The date of accident is after the communication and
(ii) the observation of the Tribunal that the theory of
cancellation is not proved is factually incorrect.
3. He invited my attention to the following documents:
LSP 2 901 fa 2351.07.doc
(i) List of documents containing the intimation given to RTO
and to the insured.
(ii) Policy cancellation memo
(3) Cheque along with the return memo.
4. The pursis given on 24th April 2007 thereby closing the
evidence. According to him the Tribunal has not considered these
documents and have come to erroneous conclusion. According to
him if these documents are considered certainly they cannot be
saddled with the compensation.
5. It is true the Tribunal has referred two judgments. I had no
occasion to read them but from the facts narrated before me it is clear
that date of accident is subsequent to date of intimation about
cancellation. On this count the Appellant may succeed, however, on
the aspect of proof of these documents, the Appellant cannot
succeed. It is true rigid proof of evidence is not applicable in an
enquiry under Motor Vehicles Act. There has to be some foundation
so to say putting case to the claimant though he is not the proper
person or examining some representative though not signatory to
that correspondence. Such foundation is not there, so I am afraid, I
can accept the contention of learned Advocate Shri Gatne. In the set
of facts, it can only be said that the Appellant can recover the amount
from the insured.
6. It is true that the Respondents have not appeared, however,
considering the limited issue involved I am deciding the appeal on
LSP 3 901 fa 2351.07.doc
hearing learned Advocate for the Appellant. The owner has also not
contested the proceedings before the Tribunal. Hence, the following
order:
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The order dated 4th June 2007 passed by MACT, Thane in
Case bearing M.A.C.P. No.1008/2001 is modified to the
extent the Appellant is permitted to recover the amount of
compensation as awarded by the Tribunal from the owner of
the vehicle/Respondent No.3.
(iii) The Appeal is disposed of.
(S.M. MODAK, J.)
Checking your session…