AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.P. Mittal, J.—The Petitioner (Respondent No. 1 in the Appeal) seeks review of the judgment dated 13.02.2012 passed by this Court on the ground that there was a clerical mistake in the statement of R3W1 (Shri V.D. Talwar). It was wrongly recorded in R3W1''s testimony that the notice dated 04.12.2004 was sent to the insured regarding cancellation of the policy. In fact, the notice Ex. R3W1/4 was dated 04.12.2000. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has taken me through the notice Ex. R3W1/4 filed on the Trial Court record. It is true that the notice Ex. R3W1/4 is dated 04.12.2000. Thus, there could be a clerical mistake in recording of the statement of R3W1 on 09.09.2010 by the Claims Tribunal, when it was recorded that "on receipt of information of dishonor of cheque, R3 had issued a notice dt. 4/12/04 to R2 intimating him that the policy stands cancelled."
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner admits that the postal receipt or any other proof of dispatch of the notice Ex. Ex. R3W1/4 was not proved on record. A suggestion was given on behalf of the Appellant that the notice Ex. R3W1/4 was fabricated. In the absence of any proof of dispatch of the notice Ex. R3W1/4 to the Appellant, it could not be said that the Appellant was informed of cancellation of the policy. In United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Laxmanamma & Ors. 2012 5 SCC 234, it was held that the Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability if it fails to inform the insured about the cancellation of the policy.
Since the Petitioner failed to establish that the policy was cancelled, it could not avoid the liability. I do not find any ground to review the impugned order.
The Review Petition is dismissed. Statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- shall be refunded.