01Facts
On 13 December 2019, Hajisab Multani died when a cruiser vehicle collided with his motorcycle.
pp. 3–7His legal representatives brought a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which awarded them ₹31,54,992 with interest at 9% per annum and directed the insurer to pay.
pp. 3–7The insurer appealed, contending that the policy had been cancelled after the premium cheque was dishonoured and that the cruiser’s driver lacked a valid driving licence.
pp. 8–1002Issues
i.Whether the Tribunal was justified in requiring the insurer to pay compensation, notwithstanding the insurer’s claim that the policy had been cancelled and that the driver lacked a valid driving licence?
pp. 10, 12–1803Law Applied
The Court placed the burden on the insurer to establish that the vehicle was not insured on the date of the accident and that the insured or vehicle owner had breached the policy terms.
p. 14Where cancellation is relied upon, the insurer must produce material showing that the policy was cancelled and that notice of cancellation was delivered to the insured.
pp. 15–17The insurer also relied on Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, arguing that service could be presumed from posting to the correct address; the Court found the evidence insufficient to establish service.
p. 8 · pp. 15–16Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173Section 134Section 187
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 279Section 337
04Reasoning
The policy document showed coverage from 27 December 2018 to 26 December 2019, encompassing the accident date.
p. 12Although the insurer alleged that the premium cheque had been dishonoured, its witness could not establish that the cheque was issued by the insured or that the policy had been issued against that cheque; the former owner denied issuing it and disputed the signature.
pp. 13–16The insurer also failed to prove that cancellation notice had been served on the insured.
pp. 15–17Finally, neither the charge sheet nor other evidence established that the driver lacked a valid licence.
p. 17The insurer therefore failed to prove that the policy was ineffective on the accident date or that a policy breach entitled it to avoid liability.
pp. 17–1805Holding
The Court answered the liability issue in the affirmative and held that the insurer remained liable to satisfy the award.
p. 10, 18It dismissed the appeal with costs, confirmed the Tribunal’s judgment and award, and directed that any amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal.
p. 19Original Court PDF
THE MANAGER THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTDvsSMT. NOORJAHAN HAJISAB MULTANI
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
