Madras High Court
Iffco Tokio General Ins. Co. Ltd. vs Gowri on 27 April, 2026
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
and
CMP No.14789 of 2021
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
and
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan, J.)
Today, this matter has been listed under the caption ‘for being
mentioned’.
2.It is stated that in paragraph Nos.23 and 36, the last word has been
wrongly typed as ‘insurer’ instead of ‘insured’. It is also stated that certain
corrections are also required in paragraph Nos.38, 39 and 40.
3.The Registry is directed to issue a fresh order copy after correcting the
word ‘insurer’ as ‘insured’ in paragraph Nos.23 and 36 and also by substituting
paragraph Nos.38, 39 and 40 as follows:
38. Applying the above, while the monthly income would be Rs.13,000 +
40% of Rs.13,000/- = Rs.18,200/-. Since there are three dependents including
the father of the deceased (as there is no contrary evidence produced to show
that the father was not dependent on the deceased), ¼ share of the income
(Rs.4,550/-) is deducted towards his personal expenses. The total monthly
1/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
income would thus be Rs.13,650/- (18,200 - Rs.4,550). The annual income of
the deceased would be Rs.13,650 x 12 = Rs.1,63,800/-. Since the deceased was
aged 24 years at the time of accident, applying the appropriate multiplier,
namely, 18, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma
and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6
SCC 121, ‘Loss of Income’ would be Rs.29,48,400/-.
39.In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,60,000/- (40,000 X 4),
Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards Loss of Consortium, Funeral Expenses and
Loss of Estate respectively. As per the decision in United India Insurance Co.
Limited v. Satinder Kaur and Ors. reported in [MANU/SC/0500/2020 : (2021)
11 SCC 780], loss of love and affection is included in loss of consortium.
Hence, the amount awarded under the head loss of love and affection is hereby
removed. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.31,38,400/- as shown in the following tabular column:
S.No. Head Amount granted by
this court Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 29,48,400/-
2. Loss of consortium 1,60,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- x 4)
3. Funeral expenses 15,000/-
4. Loss of Estate 15,000/-
Total 31,38,400/-
2/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
40. In the result,
i. the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
ii. The compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby
reduced to Rs.31,38,400 /-.
iii. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the reduced
compensation of Rs.31,38,400 /- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Thirty Eight
Thousand and Four Hundred only), less the amount already deposited,
together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.2244 of 2014 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, (In the II Court of Small Causes) at Chennai,
within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment
and recover it from the insured / fifth respondent.
iv. On such deposit being made by appellant Insurance Company, the
respondents/claimants 1, 3 and 4 are permitted to withdraw their
respective shares, as apportioned by Tribunal, along with accrued interest
and costs, less the amount, if any already withdrawn by them, by filing
necessary application before the Tribunal.
v. The share of the minor respondent (second respondent) is directed to be
deposited in any one of the Nationalised Bank till he attains majority.
vi. The first respondent being the mother of the minor respondent is
3/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months for the
welfare of the minor.
No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(C.V.K.J., ) (K.R.S.J.,)
sli 27.04.2026
To:
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
(In the II Court of Small Causes) at Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section, Madras High Court,
Chennai.
4/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
and
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
sli
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
and
CMP No.14789 of 2021
27.04.2026
5/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-04-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
CMA No. 2582 of 2021 and
CMP No.14789 of 2021
M/s.Iffco Tokio General Insurance
Company Limited,
Customer Service Centre,
‘Iffco Bhavan’, IV Floor,
No.128, Habibullah Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.
Appellant
Vs
1. Gowri
2.Minor Sk.Jyothish
Rep. by her Mother and next Friend
Gowri
3.Sakuntala
4.Raja @ Raji
5.Kumar
Respondents
PRAYER Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking to set aside the Decree and Judgment dated
12.02.2020, passed in M.C.O.P.No.2244 of 2014 by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, (In the II Court of Small Causes) at Chennai.
6/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
For Appellant: Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam
For Respondents: Mr.S.R.Raghu
for R1 to R4
No appearance for R5
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan,J.)
The 2nd respondent in MCOP No.2244 of 2014 aggrieved by the award,
dated 12.02.2020 granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Court of
Small Causes, Chennai, is the appellant herein.
2. MCOP No.2244 of 2014 had been filed by the first – fourth
Respondents herein seeking compensation for the death of one Karthik, who
was aged 24 years in a motor accident on 18.02.2014 at about 01.00 p.m., near
Tada Satyavedu Main Road in front of Colgate Company, the husband of the
first respondent / father of the second respondent and son of the third and fourth
respondents. It was stated that he was riding a new unregistered motorcycle
from his company to his house and at that time, a Tipper Lorry driven by the
driver of the fifth respondent herein bearing Registration No.AP 31 TA 1567 in
a rash and negligent manner had dashed against the motor cycle. The deceased
sustained head injury and died on spot. The fifth respondent herein is the owner
of the Tipper Lorry. The appellant herein is the Insurer of the said Tipper Lorry.
7/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
3. Before the Tribunal, the appellant herein had resisted the claim petition
on the ground that there was no policy of Insurance nor contract of the
Insurance between the fifth respondent and the appellant herein. It had been
contended that the Policy was issued on 16.12.2013 and a cheque was issued by
the fifth respondent on the same day. On 06.01.2014, the cheque was
dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds. On 06.01.2014 this fact was
intimated by the appellant herein to the Insured / 5 th respondent. Further
communication was also issued to the Road Transport office.
4. The appellant placed reliance on the postal receipts produced before the
Tribunal, indicating forwarding and sending of the said communication through
Registered post. However they could not file the acknowledgement cards or
any other letter from the post office, indicating that the letters had been
delivered to the addressee.
5. Before the Tribunal, the appellant herein had stated that since the
cheque issued towards the premium had been dishonoured owning to
insufficient funds, contract was never entered into between the appellant and the
fifth respondent. It was also pointed out that the deceased was working as a
Painter and appropriate compensation alone should be granted by the Tribunal.
8/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
6. The Tribunal by its Judgement dated 12.02.2020, while examining the
liability of the appellant herein, had stated that the acknowledgement cards for
Registered post sent regarding the dishonour of cheque by the bankers had not
been filed. It had therefore been stated that the Tribunal cannot presume that the
cancellation of the policy has been intimated to the Road Transport Office,
Nellore. It was finally held that the appellant as an Insurer, was liable to pay
compensation with right to recover the same from the fifth respondent herein.
7. With respect to quantum of compensation to be paid, the Tribunal had
granted a total sum of Rs.40,00,000/- in the following manner:
S.No. Heads Amount of Compensation Rs.
1 Loss of Dependency 36,45,000.00
2. Loss of Consortium 40,000.00
3. Loss of Love and Affection 1,50,000.00
4. Parental Consortium 1,00,000.00
5. Filial Consortium 50,000.00
6. Funeral Expenses 15,000.00
Total 40,00,000.00
8. This appeal has been filed challenging both the liability and quantum.
9/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
9. The learned counsel for the appellant first pointed out that the cheque
which had been issued towards payment of premium by the fifth respondent
herein, the owner of the Tipper Lorry, had been dishonoured for want of
insufficient funds. The learned counsel pointed out that the responsibility in
such cases on the part of the Insurance Company was to intimate this particular
fact to the insured / fifth respondent and also to the concerned Regional
Transport Office.
10. The learned counsel in this connection, produced the postal receipts
for forwarding the communication through Registered Post and placed reliance
on Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which is as follows:
“27. Meaning of service by post:- Where any (Central Act) or
Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes
or requires any document to be served by post, whether the
expression “serve” or either of the expressions “give” or “send”
or any other expression is used, then, unless, a different intention,
appears the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly
addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter
containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to
have been effected at the time at which the letter would be
delivered in the ordinary course of post.”
10/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
11. The learned counsel, interpreted such provision as stating that when
there has been a posting by a Registered post, unless the contrary is proved, it
would deem to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be
delivered in ordinary course of post. It had been argued that the service shall be
deemed to be effected by mere sending the intimation by Registered post.
12. The learned counsel in this connection placed reliance on a Full
Bench Judgment of the Kerala High Court reported in 2019 (1) TN MAC 274
(FB) (Ker.) in Prasanna.B Vs.Kabeer and Anr. wherein the Full Bench had
examined the liability of the Insurer when a cheque issued towards premium
was dishonoured. The Full Bench also examined the import of Section 27 of the
General Clauses Act. The reasoning of the Full Bench was as follows:
“3. The surest way to prove that the Intimation has been
sent by the Insurer about the cancellation of the Insurance
coverage is to dispatch it by Registered Post with or without
Postal Acknowledgment. The production of the receipt evidencing
the dispatch by registered post raises a presumption in favour of
the insurer that the intimation has been sent to the addressee for
secured delivery. The fundamental difference between speed post
and registered post is that the former is address specific and time
bound whereas the latter is addressee specific. A presumption in
11/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021favour of the sender for a properly addressed and prepaid post is
supported in law too by Section 27 of the General Clauses Act,
1897 which is extracted hereunder:
“27. Meaning of service by post.- Where any Central Act
or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act
authorizes or requires any document to be served by post,
whether the expression ‘serve’ or either of the expression
‘give’ or ‘send’ or any other expression is used, then, unless
a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed
to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and
posting by registered post, a letter containing the
document, and unless the contrary is proved, to have been
effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered
in the ordinary course of post.”
It would suffice if the insurer establishes prima facie that
the letter about the cancellation of insurance coverage sent under
Certificate of Posting or by registered post would have been
delivered in the ordinary course.
4.A period of one week from the date of dispatch can safely
be adopted as the time necessary to serve the letter in the ordinary
course after which the intimation is presumed to have been served
12/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021on the addressee. The period is so fixed in the absence of any
provision to the contrary for the limited purpose of the cases of
this nature to avoid disputes as to the date of receipt of the
intimation. The insured in some cases may try to evade the service
of notice and the letter would be returned with postal remarks like
‘addressee left’, ‘house locked’, ‘insufficient address’ etc. The
burden is on the addressee to rebut the presumption by conclusive
evidence that he did not really receive the letter and it is not a
case of deliberate avoidance. The burden is not on the insurer to
establish conclusively that the intimation of cancellation of
insurance coverage was in fact served on the insured or the
registering authority. The judgment in M.A.C.A.No.2471/2015 to
the effect that it is the obligation of the insurer to establish the
service of the intimation on the addressee is hereby overruled.
Needless to say that no liability can be fastened on the insurer for
any compensation payable in respect of an accident that occurs
after the service of the intimation aforesaid. The reference is
answered accordingly. The appeal shall be listed for hearing
before the Division Bench as per roster.”
13/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
13. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the Insurance
Regulatory and Development Authority (Manner of Receipt of Premium)
Regulations, 2002 which came into effect on and from 16.10.2002 wherein
with respect to commencement of risk. It had been provided as follows:
“4. Commencement of risk- In all cases of risks covered by
the policies issued by an insurer, the attachment of risk to an insurer
will be in consonance with the terms of section 64-VB of the Act and
except in the cases where the premium has been paid in cash, in all
other cases the insurer shall be on risk only after the receipt of the
premium by the insurer:
Provided that in the case of a policy of general insurance that where
the remittance made by the proposer or the policy holder is not
realised by the insurer, the policy shall be treated as void ab initio:
Provided further that in the case of a policy of life insurance, the
continuance of the risk or otherwise shall depend on the terms and
conditions of the policy already entered into.”
14. Pointing out that the said provisions, the learned counsel argued that
when the remittance made by the proposer or Policy holder, is not realised
which in effect would mean that when the cheque issued had been dishonoured,
the policy shall be treated as void ab initio. The learned counsel therefore
14/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
argued that the policy which had been issued by the appellant herein, should be
construed as void ab initio, which would in effect mean it has no effect from the
date of its creation and therefore, the appellant herein would not be liable for
any claim based on the said policy.
15. Placing his arguments on the above grounds relating to liability, the
learned counsel urged that this Court should hold that the appellant herein was
not liable to pay compensation for the death of Karthik who died in the motor
accident and on behalf of whose death, the claim petition had been preferred by
his legal representatives including his father.
16. The learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the
Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in United India Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Laxmamma and Ors. reported in (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases
234 wherein, it had been held that the statutory liability of the Insurer to
indemnify third parties, always subsists except when the insurer satisfies the
Court that the policy of insurance was cancelled and intimation of such
cancellation had reached the insured before the accident. The legal position had
been reduced as follows:
“26. In our view, the legal position is this: where the policy
of insurance is issued by an authorised insurer on receipt of
15/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021cheque towards the payment of premium and such a cheque is
returned dishonoured, the liability of the authorised insurer to
indemnify the third parties in respect of the liability which that
policy covered subsists and it has to satisfy the award of
compensation by reason of the provisions of Sections 147(5) and
149(1) of the MV Act unless the policy of insurance is cancelled
by the authorised insurer and intimation of such cancellation has
reached the insured before the accident. In other words, where the
policy of insurance is issued by an authorised insurer to cover a
vehicle on receipt of the cheque paid towards premium and the
cheque gets dishonoured and before the accident of the vehicle
occurs, such insurance company cancels the policy of insurance
and sends intimation thereof to the owner, the insurance
company’s liability to indemnify the third parties which that
policy covered ceases and the insurance company is not liable to
satisfy awards of compensation in respect thereof.”
17. In that particular case, however factually it was noted that the
intimation was delivered after the date of accident.
16/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
18. The learned counsel pointed out that in the instant case, the intimation
was forwarded on 06.01.2014 much prior to the date of accident on 18.02.2014
and therefore claimed that the appellant herein having satisfied the condition of
cancellation of the policy and intimation of the policy prior to the date of the
accident both to the insured / fifth respondent and also to the Road Transport
officer, Nellore, it should be absolved of all liability to pay compensation as
claimed by the first – fourth Respondents herein.
19. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that the fifth respondent
herein who is the owner of the Tipper Lorry had taken a conscious decision not
to participate in the judicial proceedings and remained exparte before the
Tribunal and even before this Court.
20. The learned counsel for the respondents however argued that the
claimants were third parties to the policy of insurance and had a reasonable and
legitimate expectation that when the policy had been issued and the death
occurred owing to the accident caused by the vehicle which had been insured,
the legal representatives would stand compensated by the insurer.
17/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
21. The learned counsel argued that alternatively the insurer can pay the
compensation and recover it from the insured. The learned counsel stated that
that this particular line of reasoning had also been adhered to by Courts of law.
22. In this connection, the learned counsel had placed reliance on the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in The New India Assurance
Company Limited Vs. Azhagusumathi reported in (2015) 1 TN MAC 179
(DB), wherein the Division Bench had held as follows:
“14. As per Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897
which deals with topic ‘Meaning of service by post’ says that
where any Central Act or regulation authorizes or requires a
document to be served by post, then unless a different intention
appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly
addressing’, prepaying and posting it by registered post, a letter
containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to
have been effected at the time at which the letter would be
delivered in ordinary course of post. The Section, thus, raises
the presumption of due service or proper service if the
document sought to be served is sent by properly addressing,
prepaying and posting by registered post to the addressee and
such presumption is raised irrespective of whether any
18/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021acknowledgment due is received from the addressee or not. Of
course, the said presumption is rebuttable. But in the present
case Exs.B4, B6 and B7 would show that the letter intimating
about the dishonour of cheque followed by cancellation of
policy has been sent to the address of the owner given in the
policy by registered post, of course, without any
acknowledgement due. The said letter having been sent
properly addressing and posting it by registered post, it would
raise a presumption that the service been effected on the
addressee to whom the communication was sent. Therefore, the
appellant having intimated the notice of cancellation by
registered post to the owner and the RTO, the service of notice
of cancellation can be treated as sufficient and the insurance
company can take advantage that it has duly intimated to the
owner of the offending vehicle and the authorities concerned
regarding cancellation of policy due to the dishonour of
cheque. Hence, the insurer cannot be held liable to indemnify
the owner and it is absolved from liability. The reasoning given
and the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard is
erroneous. Both the questions are answered accordingly.
However, the claim of third party cannot be defeated for the
19/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021self created predicament of the insurer in issuing the policy
without actually receiving the premium. Hence, the insurance
company shall pay the compensation to the claimants which it
may realise from the owner of the offending vehicle.”
23. Placing reliance on the observation that the claim of a third party
cannot be defeated for the self created predicament of the insurer in issuing the
policy, the learned counsel argued that the appellant herein should pay the
compensation and should recover it from the Insurer.
24. Reference was also made to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Deddappa and Ors. Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.
Ltd., reported in (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 595, wherein, it had been held
as follows:
“24. We are not oblivious of the distinction between the statutory
liability of the Insurance Company vis-a-vis a third party in the
context of Sections 147 and 149 of the Act and its liabilities in
other cases. But the same liabilities arising under a contract of
insurance would have to be met if the contract is valid. If the
contract of insurance has been cancelled and all concerned have
been intimated thereabout, we are of the opinion, the insurance
company would not be liable to satisfy the claim.”
20/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
25. The learned counsel for the respondents also pointed out the Judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1998)1 Supreme Court Cases 371 in
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Inderjit Kaur and Ors. wherein also, the
cheque issued towards the premium had been dishonoured and the insurer had
informed the insured that the cheque had been dishonoured and that the insurer
would not be at risk, but still it had been held that the Insurer though was
entitled to avoid the policy, was however liable for third party risks as the public
interest served by an Insurance policy must prevail over the Insurers’ interest.
26. In this connection, the following paragraphs of the said Judgment are
extracted for better appreciation:
“6. We find it is difficult to conclude that the judgment in
the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ayeb Mohd.
[(1991) 2 ACJ 650] decides a principle of law because no notice
had been issued on the special leave petition. At the same time,
the opinion is expressed in the judgment that the High Court was
in error in holding, in the absence of steps to cancel the cover
note, the risk would subsist.
7. Chapter 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for
the insurance of motor vehicles against third-party risks. Section
21/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021146 thereunder states that no person shall use or cause or allow
any other person to use a motor vehicle in a public place unless
there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle a policy of
insurance that complies with the requirements of the chapter.
Section 147 sets out the requirements of policies and the limits of
liability. A policy of insurance, by reason of this provision, must
be a policy which is issued by a person who is an authorised
insurer. Sub-section (5) reads thus:
“147. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law
for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of
insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify
the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in
respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover
in the case of that person or those classes of persons.”
8. Section 149 refers to the duty of insurers to satisfy
judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of
third-party risks. Sub-section (1) thereof reads thus:
“149. (1) If, after a certificate of insurance has been
issued under sub-section (3) of Section 147 in favour of
the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment
22/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021or award in respect of any such liability as is required to
be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section
(1) of Section 147 (being a liability covered by the terms
of the policy) or under the provisions of Section 163-A is
obtained against any person insured by the policy, then,
notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid
or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy,
the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section,
pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any
sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder,
as if he were the judgment-debtor, in respect of the
liability, together with any amount payable in respect of
costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that
sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on
judgments.”
9. We have, therefore, this position. Despite the bar created
by Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, the appellant, an
authorised insurer, issued a policy of insurance to cover the bus
without receiving the premium therefor. By reason of the
provisions of Sections 147(5) and 149(1) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, the appellant became liable to indemnify third parties in
23/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021respect of the liability which that policy covered and to satisfy
awards of compensation in respect thereof notwithstanding its
entitlement (upon which we do not express any opinion) to avoid
or cancel the policy for the reason that the cheque issued in
payment of the premium thereon had not been honoured.
10. The policy of insurance that the appellant issued was a
representation upon which the authorities and third parties were
entitled to act. The appellant was not absolved of its obligations
to third parties under the policy because it did not receive the
premium. Its remedies in this behalf lay against the insured.
11. We may note in this connection the following passage
in the case of Montreal Street Rly. Co. v. Normandin [AIR 1917
PC 142] :
“When the provisions of a statute relate to the
performance of a public duty and the case is such that to
hold null and void acts done in neglect of this duty would
work serious general inconvenience or injustice to
persons who have no control over those entrusted with
the duty and at the same time would not promote the
main object of the legislature, it has been the practice to
hold such provisions to be directory only, the neglect of
24/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021them, though punishable, not affecting the validity of the
acts done.”
12. It must also be noted that it was the appellant itself
who was responsible for its predicament. It had issued the policy
of insurance upon receipt only of a cheque towards the premium
in contravention of the provisions of Section 64-VB of the
Insurance Act. The public interest that a policy of insurance
serves must, clearly, prevail over the interest of the appellant.
13. We are of the view, in the circumstances, that the
observations in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Ayeb Mohd. [(1991) 2 ACJ 650] do not lay down good law.
14. The appeal is dismissed. The respondents not having
appeared, there shall be no order as to costs.
27. It must also be pointed out that this Judgment was rendered by a
Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
28. It must be pointed out that though the Larger Bench decision in
Inderjit Kaur had been diluted by subsequent Judgments, the Courts had
refused to accept such dilution and had upheld and followed the view held in
Inderjit Kaur and Ors. referred supra.
25/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
29. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned
counsels and perused the records.
30. The following facts are not in dispute:
(1) the appellant had issued the Policy of Insurance on 16.12.2013 for the
Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.AP 31 TA 1567 which was owned by the
fifth respondent herein.
(2) the fifth respondent had issued a cheque towards the payment of
premium on the same day / 16.12.2013.
(3) the cheque was returned by the bankers of the appellant on the ground
of insufficient funds on 06.01.2014;
(4) the appellant had intimated this fact to the insured by Registered post
with acknowledgement due on 06.01.2014;
(5) The appellant herein had also intimated this fact to the Road Transport
Office at Nellore by Registered post with acknowledgement due on 06.01.2014.
(6) The accident for which the claim was made on the basis of the policy
which had been issued, occurred on 18.02.2014.
31. During the course of trial, the appellant had produced the postal
receipts towards the posting of the intimation and about the cancellation of the
policy [notice to the fifth respondent herein (Ex.R3), to the Road Transport
26/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
Office, Nellore (Ex.R4), to the Financier, Larsen & Toubro Limited (Ex.R5)]. It
is thus evident that the fifth respondent had issued a cheque which was returned
on the ground of insufficient funds.
32. In the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Manner
of Receipt of Premium) Regulations, 2002, it had been provided that when the
remittance made by the proposer, in this case by the fifth respondent, had not
been realized by the appellant owing to, in this case, the cheque being returned
for want of sufficient funds, the policy shall be treated as void ab initio.
33. However, we would also have to refer to Section 64 (V) (b) of the
Insurance Act, which is as follows:
“64VB. No risk to be assumed unless premium is received
in advance:-
(1)No insurer shall assume any risk in India in respect of
any insurance business on which premium is not ordinarily
payable outside India unless and until the premium payable is
received by him or is guaranteed to be paid by such person in
such manner and within such time as may be prescribed or unless
and until deposit of such amount as may be prescribed, is made in
advance in the prescribed manner.
27/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
(2)For the purposes of this section, in the case of risks for
which premium can be ascertained in advance, the risk may be
assumed not earlier than the date on which the premium has been
paid in cash or by cheque to the insurer.
Explanation.–Where the premium is tendered by postal
money order or cheque sent by post, the risk may be assumed on
the date on which the money order is booked or the cheque is
posted, as the case may be.
34. The provision of the Central legislation prevails over every other
regulation or circular issued. The Act very clearly provides that no policy shall
be issued unless the premium is received.
35. In the instant case, the policy had actually been issued. Later, as a
fact, since the cheque had been dishonoured, the appellant has cancelled it but
there is no proof for delivery of the said intimation. The appellant falls back to
Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. However, the Larger Bench of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inderjit Kaur and Ors. referred supra had held that
third party risks are a public interest served by an Insurance Policy and must
prevail over the insurers’ interest. This Judgment was rendered because of
conflicting Judgments in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Ayeb Mohd.
28/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
reported in (1991) 2 ACJ 650. It was finally held that the ratio laid in the
aforementioned Judgment (Ayeb Mohd.) did not laid down good law. This
particular Judgment of Inderjit Kaur has been subsequently referred in (2012) 5
Supreme Court Cases 234, (Laxmamma and ors. case referred supra) wherein
after examining subsequent Judgments (after Inderjit Kaur referred supra),
particularly Deddappa and ors. referred supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had
again reiterated the position of law as laid down in Inderjit Kaur. The position
of law which the Supreme Court again reiterated in Laxmamma case in
paragraph 24 is as under:
“24. We find it hard to accept the submission of the learned
counsel for the insurer that the three-Judge Bench decision in
Inderjit Kaur has been diluted by the subsequent decisions in
Seema Malhotra and Deddappa. Seema Malhotra and Deddappa
turned on the facts obtaining therein.”
36. The one fact which plays on our mind is that no document had been
produced to prove intimation of the communication on either the Insured or on
the Road Transport Office, Nellore. It is also necessary that the Policy should
have been cancelled by the appellant herein. However, we are bound by the
deduction laid down by the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Inderjit Kaur (referred supra) wherein they had stated very clearly that
29/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
honouring third party risks prevails over interest of the insurer. The ratio laid
down therein that the compensation amount should be paid and thereafter
recovered, subserves justice, and we would therefore follow that particular
reasoning and direct the appellant herein to pay the compensation amount and
recover it from the insurer.
37. With respect to the quantum of compensation awarded, a perusal of
the Award of the Tribunal, it is seen that the future prospects of the deceased had
been taken as 50%, which is on the higher side. In the light of the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. vs Pranay Sethi and
others reported in 2017 (2) TNMAC 601 we are inclined to fix the future
prospects of the deceased at 40% and the notional income of the deceased is
also reduced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.13,000/- p.m. as the deceased was working
as a Painter.
38. Applying the above, while the monthly income would be Rs.13,000 +
40% of Rs.13,000/- = Rs.18,200/-. Since there are three dependents including
the father of the deceased (as there is no contrary evidence produced to show
that the father was not dependent on the deceased), ¼ share of the income is
deducted towards his personal expenses. The total monthly income would thus
be Rs.4,550/-. The annual income of the deceased would be Rs.4,550 x 12 =
30/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
Rs.54,600/-. Since the deceased was aged 24 years at the time of accident,
applying the appropriate multiplier, namely, 18, as per the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, ‘Loss of Income’
would be Rs.9,82,800/-.
39. In addition, the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,60,000/- (40,000 X 4),
Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards Loss of Consortium, Loss
of love and affection, Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses respectively, as per
the decision in National Insurance Co. vs Pranay Sethi and others (cited
supra). Thus, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.13,22,800/- (9,82,800 + 1,60,000 + 1,50,000 + 15,000 + 15000 = 13,22,800)
as shown in the following tabular column:
S.No. Head Amount granted by
this court Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 9,82,800 /-
2. Loss of consortium 1,60,000/-
(Rs.40,000/- x 4)
3. Loss of Love and affection 1,50,000/-
4. Funeral expenses 15,000/-
5. Loss of Estate 15,000/-
Total 13,22,800/-
31/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
40. In the result,
i. the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed.
ii. The compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby
reduced to Rs.13,22,800/-.
iii. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the reduced
compensation of Rs.13,22,800 /- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Twenty Two
Thousand Eight Hundred only), less the amount already deposited,
together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.2244 of 2014 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, (In the II Court of Small Causes) at Chennai,
within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment
and recover it from the insurer / fifth respondent.
iv. On such deposit being made by appellant Insurance Company, the
respondents/claimants 1, 3 and 4 are permitted to withdraw their
respective shares, as apportioned by Tribunal, along with accrued interest
and costs, less the amount, if any already withdrawn by them, by filing
necessary application before the Tribunal.
v. The share of the minor respondent (second respondent) is directed to be
deposited in any one of the Nationalised Bank till he attains majority.
32/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
vi. The first respondent being the mother of the minor respondent is
permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months for the
welfare of the minor.
No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(C.V.K,J.) (K.R.S,J.)
02-04-2026
vum
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
33/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, (In the II Court of Small
Causes) at Chennai
2.The Section Officer, VR Section,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
34/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No. 2582 of 2021
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR J.
vum
CMA No. 2582 of 2021 &
CMP No.14789 of 2021
02-04-2026
35/35
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
