Case at a Glance
An MCD employee cycling to work in October 2014 was hit by a minibus whose insurance policy the insurer had declared void nine months earlier because the premium cheque bounced. The insurer argued it owed nothing. Justice Anish Dayal held that once a policy or certificate of insurance has been issued, the insurer must satisfy a third-party award even if it later cancels the policy, though it may recover the amount from the owner. The Court set out five guideposts on cover notes, policies and dishonoured premiums, upheld pay-and-recover, and raised the compensation from ₹9.25 lakh to ₹10.28 lakh.
At about 6:40 am on 10 October 2014, the claimant was cycling to his MCD office at Karkardooma when he was hit by a minibus. An FIR was registered under Sections 279 and 338 IPC and the driver was charge-sheeted. The minibus had a policy effective from 19 January 2014, but the premium cheque issued on 10 January 2014 was dishonoured for insufficient funds on 17 January. On 20 January 2014 the insurer endorsed the policy as void ab initio, and on 21 January it wrote to the owner and the RTO. The accident happened about nine months later.
By award dated 19 May 2018 in MACT No. 541/2016, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Shahdara (Karkardooma) awarded ₹9,25,000 with 9% interest, directing the insurer to pay with a right to recover from the owner and driver, who did not appear. The insurer appealed, arguing it had no liability at all under a void policy and relying on Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938. The claimant cross-appealed for enhancement, seeking 16% functional disability. The Court appointed an amicus curiae, who argued that once a policy is issued the contract crystallises.
The Key Question Before the Court
Is an insurer liable to pay a third-party accident victim when the policy was cancelled for a dishonoured premium cheque before the accident, and if so, can it recover the amount from the vehicle owner?
The Motor Vehicles Act Scheme Prevails Once a Policy Is Issued
Applying the pre-2019 provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Justice Dayal examined the statutory scheme of Sections 147 and 149. A policy is of no effect without a certificate of insurance in the prescribed form, so the contract with third-party consequences arises once the certificate is issued and Section 147(1) is satisfied. A cover note is an interim document valid for 60 days, and the insurer must notify the registering authority on its expiry; a failure to notify leads to a presumption that the insurer does not wish to avoid the contract. Once liability attaches, “the insurer steps into the judgment debtor’s shoes in respect of the liability, including costs and interest”, even if it has cancelled the policy. The Court acknowledged that Section 64VB of the Insurance Act pulls the other way, but held that the Motor Vehicles Act’s scheme prevails once a policy is issued, adding that insurers “ought to issue a policy of insurance/certificate of insurance only when they actually receive the premium.”
The Court reviewed the Supreme Court’s decisions in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur, (1997) 12 SC CK 0089, (1998) 1 SCC 371, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rula, (2000) 03 SC CK 0014, (2000) 3 SCC 195, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Seema Malhotra, (2001) 02 SC CK 0151, (2001) 3 SCC 151, and Deddappa v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2007) 12 SC CK 0016, (2008) 2 SCC 595, among others. It granted recovery under Section 65 of the Contract Act, relying on New India Assurance Co. v. Kamla, (2001) 03 SC CK 0051, (2001) 4 SCC 342, observing that “the insured cannot go scot free for an insurance it never really paid for.” It then distilled five guideposts and turned to quantum, applying Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2010) 10 SC CK 0022, (2011) 1 SCC 343: functional disability was raised from 8% to 10% (not the 16% sought) and loss of amenities from ₹40,000 to ₹1,00,000, while a future-prospects figure the Court said was “wrongly added at a later stage” was corrected.
What the Court Actually Held
- Once premium is tendered and a cover note issued, or a policy or certificate issued, the insurer assumes the risk; if a cover note issues without premium, the insurer may avoid it within the cover-note period only by informing the RTO and the insured, failing which it is presumed to accept liability.
- Once a policy is issued, the insurer remains liable to satisfy third-party awards even if it later cancels the policy for a dishonoured premium cheque, and cannot “wriggle out of the same purely on the basis of a statutory mandate.”
- The insurer is entitled to recover the amount from the owner and driver; the Tribunal’s recovery rights were upheld.
- Compensation was enhanced by ₹1,03,000 to ₹10,28,000 with 9% interest from the date of the petition; the insurer must deposit the enhanced amount within four weeks, to be released to the claimant within two weeks thereafter.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Bounced premium cheques are common in commercial vehicle insurance; the ruling ensures the road accident victim is not left without a solvent payer.
- It places the burden on insurers to collect premium before issuing policies, and to inform the RTO and insured promptly if they will not honour a cover note.
- The five guideposts give Tribunals a ready framework for cover-note and cancelled-policy disputes.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Accident Victims
- An insurer’s claim that the policy was cancelled for non-payment does not by itself defeat your award.
- Pay-and-recover orders mean the insurer pays you first and pursues the owner afterwards.
- Functional disability and loss of amenities can be revisited in appeal if the Tribunal under-assessed them.
For Counsel
- Distinguish between a cover note (interim, 60-day validity) and an issued policy or certificate; the consequences of non-payment differ.
- Check whether the insurer notified the RTO and the insured of cancellation, and when.
- For insurers, press recovery under Section 65 of the Contract Act and New India Assurance Co. v. Kamla.
Key Takeaways
- A bounced premium cheque does not let the insurer escape a third-party award once a policy was issued.
- Insurers can recover from the owner who never paid.
- Cover notes must be avoided promptly by informing the RTO and insured.
- Compensation raised to ₹10.28 lakh with 9% interest.
Frequently Asked Questions
If the vehicle owner’s premium cheque bounced, will the accident victim still get compensation?
According to this judgment, yes, where a policy or certificate of insurance had been issued. The insurer must satisfy the third-party award and can then recover the amount from the owner.
What is ‘pay and recover’?
It is an order requiring the insurer to pay the compensation to the victim first, while giving it the right to recover that amount from the owner or driver who breached the policy or did not pay for it. The Tribunal’s pay-and-recover direction was upheld here.
Did the Court find any internal inconsistency on the cover-note period?
The judgment refers to both 60 days and 67 days in discussing the window within which an insurer may avoid a cover note issued without premium. It does not reconcile the two figures.
Conclusion
The ruling puts the cost of a bounced premium where it belongs: on the owner who did not pay, not on the cyclist who was injured. Insurers that issue policies before collecting premium carry the risk of third-party liability, with only a right of recovery as their remedy.
Practical takeaway: In third-party claims where the insurer pleads cancellation for non-payment, examine whether a policy or certificate was issued and whether the RTO and insured were notified; if so, press for pay-and-recover rather than exoneration.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com