SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High 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