IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme Court

Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court

21 September 2024 11:52 AM

By: sayum


In an important judgement, the Calcutta High Court in Sibabrata Dutta & Anr. vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr. directed the insurance company to pay compensation in a motor accident case, despite the cancellation of the policy due to a dishonored cheque. The court also granted the insurer the right to recover the amount from the vehicle's owner, underscoring the principle of 'pay and recover' to ensure just compensation.

The case arose from a tragic accident on August 13, 2003, when the victim, Minati Dutta, suffered fatal injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of a tourist bus. The deceased was 57 years old and employed at the Mathabhanga S.D.O. office in Cooch Behar, earning a salary of ₹12,981 per month. The claimants, her legal heirs, sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The insurance company, Oriental Insurance, contested the claim, arguing that the policy had been canceled before the accident due to a dishonored premium cheque. They asserted that they had duly informed the vehicle owner about the policy cancellation. However, the claimants argued that they were not notified about the cancellation before the accident.

The central issue was whether the insurance company was liable to pay compensation when the insurance policy was canceled due to a dishonored cheque, and whether the company had sufficiently informed the insured about the cancellation before the accident occurred. The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Laxmamma & Ors., which held that the insurer's liability persists unless the policy cancellation is communicated to the insured before the accident.

Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) noted:

"In the present case admittedly there is no proof that the 'intimation of such cancellation had reached the insured before the accident.' Thus the Insurance Company... is liable to pay the compensation in this case as the intimation of such cancellation did not reach the insured before the accident."

The court determined that the insurance company failed to prove that it had informed the insured about the policy cancellation before the accident. As a result, the company was held liable to pay the compensation. The court also upheld the principle of 'pay and recover,' allowing the insurance company to recover the paid compensation from the vehicle's owner through due legal process. The Supreme Court's judgment in Balu Krishna Chavan vs. The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. was cited to support this principle.

The Calcutta High Court set aside the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's previous ruling that had dismissed the claim on jurisdictional grounds. It ordered Oriental Insurance Company to pay ₹11,49,719 along with 6% interest from the date of the claim application. The insurer was granted the right to recover the amount from the vehicle's owner. This judgment reinforces the obligation of insurance companies to provide compensation even when the policy is canceled, provided the insured was not informed before the incident.

Date of Decision: September 13, 2024

Sibabrata Dutta & Anr. vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr.

Latest Legal News