Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus BALKAR RAM & ORS.

Decided
9 July 2013
Judges listed
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, KURIAN JOSEPH (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 74 · 2013 INSC 455
Also cited as
  • 2013 SCC OnLine SC 592 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

This appeal has been preferred by way of special leave against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in F.A.O. No. 2941 of 2004 dated 28.09.2004 wherein the appeal filed by the Appellant-insurance company was dismissed holding therein that the intimation by the Appellant-Insurance Company regarding dishonour of the cheque towards the issuance of policy was communicated to the policy-holder after the accident. Hence, it was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants/ Respondents and it could not recover the same from the owner.

p. 75, margin B

2

To clarify the position, it may be stated that the vehicle which was insured with the appellant met with an accident and a compensation of Rs.1,24,035/- was ordered to be paid to the respondents-claimants along with interest and the owner as also the insurance company were jointly and severally held liable by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short)to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants.

p. 75, margin D

3

The Appellant/Insurance Company assailed the award passed by the Tribunal essentially on the ground that the cover note for the policy of insurance was issued on 7.04.2000 for which a cheque was submitted by the owner. However, the cheque was dishonoured by the bank on 17.04.2000. Subsequently, the vehicle which was insured with lhe appellantinsurance company met with an accident on 19.04.2000. The appellant-insurance company, therefore, contended that as the policy of insurance could not be held to be a valid document in view of the fact that the cheque towards the policy had been dishonoured even before the accident had taken place, the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the claimants by paying the amount which fell into its share as per the Tribunal's award and it is the owner which is liable to pay the entire amount of compensation to the respondents/ claimants.

pp. 75–76, margin E

4

However, we compliment Ms. Kiran Suri, learned counsel for the appellant for cutting short the controversy by fairly pointing out the ratio of the judgment (2012) 5 sec 234 titled United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmamma & Ors. wherein it has been held that the insurance company is liable to satisfy the award if the intimation regarding the dishonour of the cheque and cancellation of policy is communicated to the policy-holder after the date of the accident. Thus, the defence of the insurance company that the policy of insurance was not valid since the cheque had been dishonoured prior to the accident would not exonerate them from making the payment of compensation. In this matter, admittedly the accident had taken place on 19.04.2000 and the cheque although had been dishonoured prior to the accident on 17 .04.2000, the intimation to the policy-holder had been given by the insurance company on 26.04.2000, in view of which the insurance company cannot be allowed to contend that the policy-holder was not holding a valid policy of insurance in regard to the vehicle which met with an accident. Admittedly, the policy-holder had already issued another cheque substituting the cheque which had earlier been dishonoured.

p. 76, margin A

5

In that view of the matter and following the ratio of the judgment referred to hereinbefore, this appeal has no substance and accordingly it is dismissed. No order as to costs. K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.

p. 76, margin E