AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—The deceased in MVC No. 324/91 is one Dhanasekahran died in the motor vehicle accident, Wife and children and the mother of the deceased are the petitioners. The deceased was working as driver in Mineral Exploration Corporation. A public sector undertaking. The deceased was getting salary of Rs. 1280/- p.m. As per unit system Rs. 322/- to be defrayed towards personal expenses. The total loss of dependency would be Rs. 960 x 12 x 15 multiplier). The first petitioner is entitled to Rs. 10000/- towards loss of consortium, the petitioners together entitled to Rs. 10000/- towards loss of expectancy and Rs. 3000/- towards loss of funeral expenses.
In all, the petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 1,95,000/- with interest at 6% from the date of the petition till payment as against Rs. 1,21,000/- awarded lay the Tribunal. The enhanced condensation shall be paid equally to the petitioners No. l to 4.
The petitioner while boarding the bus, fell down and sustained fatal in juries. The Tribunal has assessed the contributory negligence of the deceased at 25% and negligence of the driver of the bus at 15%, The evidence adduced before the Tribunal discloses that the deceased was trying to board the moving bus as a result, he fell down. Therefore, the assessment of contributory negligence at 259 is sound and proper.
The insurer is in appeal seeking avoidance of liability on the ground that there was no policy of insurance. The owner of the vehicle paid cash of Rs. 5000/- and issued cheque for Rs. 1643/-" towards premium. The policy was issued w.e.f. 30.1.1991 to 29.1.1992. The cheque was dishonoured on 20.3.1991. The insured did not pay the cheque amount despite repeated reminders. The policy is cancelled on 27.3.1991 and .while so cancelling, the insurer deducted the premium amount for the period 30.1.1991 to 27.3.1991 from out of the cash of Rs. 5000/- paid, and the insurer has directed the insured to take the balance of premium amount as refund. But the insured has not collected the refund. On the above facts it is strenuously argued that the policy was validly cancelled much earlier to the accident occurred on 12.6.1991. Hence, the insurer does not incur any liability.
The contention is untenable both in law and equity. Tariff regulations permit issuance of policy for a period varying from 15 days to one year, the insurer has paid cash of Rs. 5000/-. The said amount was sufficient to cover the period for about 9 to 10 months. It is expected on the part of the insurer to have appropriated the cash payment of Rs. 5000/- proportionate to the period for which the policy could be issued. Had it been done so, the policy could have been issued for about 10 months and the accident would have been within the policy period. The conduct of the insurer in appropriating the amount only for a limited period from 31.1.1991 to 23.7.1991 is arbitrary when there was enough money paid by the insured to cover for a much longer period. Such a conduct on the part of the insurer offends the legal and statutory obligation imposed on the insurer under law.
The dismissal of the Writ petition No. 7362/91 filed by the insured challenging the cancellation of the policy is of no consequence, in so far as the liability of the third party is concerned. Hence, the insurer to pay the compensation.
Accordingly, the appeal of the insurer in MFA No. 1750/2000 is dismissed. M.F.A. No. 7127/2002 is allowed as indicated above.