LexNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. versus MAYA DEVI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 999 : 2024 INSC 1050 National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Maya Devi & Ors. (Civil Appeal No(s). 15016-15017 of 2024) 02 September 2024 [Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the insured vehicle was involved in the accident; whether the insurance policy granted by the insurance company covers the incident; whether the insurance policy was fraudulently obtained. Headnotes† Accident resulting in the death of R1 and R2 – Insured Vehicle involved in the accident – Witnesses’ accounts confirmed involvement – Confirmed by Final Report under S. 173, CrPC – Insurance Company could not disprove: Held: Per the MACT award, various witnesses had stated that it was the vehicle described in the complaint that was involved in the accident – Final Report under Section 173 of CrPC also stated that the vehicle, as claimed by the complainants, was the one involved in the accident – The onus was on the Insurance Company to get the same disproved by either calling the Investigating Officer as a witness or by any other means, such as appropriate line of cross- examination, etc. to establish a factual position to the contrary – Admittedly, this was not done. [Paras 7, 8, 9] Liability of the Insurance Company – Insurance certificate/ policy – Incident occurred on 11.04.2017 at 14:15 hrs – Insurance obtained at 15:54 hrs on 11.04.2017 – Coverage begins from the day of receipt of the Premium: Held: The MACT found that the premium was paid prior to the accident and it was because of the internal procedure that the policy was issued the next day – Court held that coverage under the policy began from the day the premium was received by the Insurance Company in light of the express terms of ‘Certificate of Insurance cum policy Schedule’ that provided ‘Date of commencement of risk: 11/04/2017’ – Since the incident occurred on 11.04.2017, the *Author 1000 [2024] 9 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Court held that the vehicle was insured when the accident took place. [Paras 11, 12] Insurance Company – Insurance was fraudulently obtained – Alleged fraud not proved by the Insurance Company: Held: Even though fraud vitiates everything, merely alleging fraud does not amount to proving it – The Insurance Company has not discharged its onus to prove the alleged fraud. [Paras 13, 16] Case Law Cited National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh [2004] 1 SCR 180 : (2004) 3 SCC 297; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dharam Chand (2010) 15 SCC 141; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sobina lakai [2007] 8 SCR 108 : (2007) 7 SCC 786; Bishnudeo Narain v. Seogeni Rai [1951] SCR 548; Bhaurao Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra [2005] Supp. 2 SCR 774 : (2005) 7 SCC 605 – relied on. List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. List of Keywords MACT award; Insured vehicle; Accident; Final Report; Insurance certificate; Cross examination; Section 173 of CrPC; Certificate of Insurance cum policy Schedule; Date of commencement; Fraud; Onus to prove. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 15016- 15017 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 05.10.2018 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO Nos. 2921 and 2922 of 2018 (O&M) Appearances for Parties Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. K Enatoli Sema, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Advs. for the Appellant. Sahil Tagotra, Chritarth Palli, Vishal Mahajan, Bipin Bihary Singh, Anil Kumar, Vinod Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents. [2024] 9 S.C.R. 1001 National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Maya Devi & Ors. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Leave granted. FACTS: 2. These appeals arise from the common Final Judgment and Order dated 05.10.2018 rendered by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O. Nos.2921/2018 (O&M) and 2922/2018 (O&M) whereby, while dismissing the appeals preferred by the Petitioner-Insurance Company, the High Court upheld the compensation awarded to the claimants i.e., Respondents No.1 and 2 herein vide Award dated 01.02.2018 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal at Gurdaspur, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MACT’) in the claim petitions1 filed by the Respondents No.1 and 2. The MACT had awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.67,50,000/- and Rs.8,70,000/- with interest @9% per annum to the Respondent No.1, being the mother of Sh. Om Prakash and mother-in-l
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.