Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants if cheque of premium issued by vehicle-owner is dishonored before the date of accident

On perusal of the entire record, it is not in dispute that respondent No.6, owner of the offending vehicle, has issued the cheque on 28.02.2014 for Rs.42,335/- towards payment of premium in respect of the offending vehicle. Pursuant to the same, the Insurer has issued a cover note on the very same day. The Insurer deposited the said cheque with its banker on 10.03.2014 for encashment, but the same was dishonoured on 11.03.2014. The same was informed to the Insurer vide cheque return memo dated 11.03.2014. Thereafter, the Insurer has addressed Ex.B5 - letter dated 13.03.2014 to the owner by sending the same through registered post with acknowledgment due to the address furnished by the owner while issuing Ex.B1 - cover note. A copy of Ex.B5 was marked to the RTO informing about the dishonour of cheque as well as cancellation of cover note. The said letter was received by the owner vide Ex.B6, while the RTO under Ex.B7. In Ex.B6 - postal acknowledgment card, there is a signature in proof of receipt of Ex.B5 - letter. It further discloses that the article was booked vide RLAD No.RM838996406IN. The learned counsel for the claimants would contend that signature on Ex.B6 does not belong to respondent No.6 and, therefore, he has not received Ex.B5 - letter. But, the said contention cannot be accepted in view of Exs.B1, B5 and B6. Admittedly, Ex.B5 was sent to the address furnished by the owner under Ex.B1.[Para No.26]

    From the above discussion, it is clear that the cheque issued under Ex.B2 was dishonoured and consequently Ex.B1, cover-note was cancelled by the Insurer. The Insurer also intimated about the dishonour of cheque as well as cancellation of policy to the owner as well as RTO by addressing a letter under Ex.B5 and the said letter was received by the owner under Ex.B6 while Ex.B7 discloses receipt of Ex.B5 letter by the RTO. Thus, there is no valid policy exists as on the date of accident i.e., 04.05.2014. Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act also says that no risk to be assumed unless premium is received in advance. In the present case, the Insurer has not received the premium and, therefore, the Insurer shall not assume any risk. As such, the Insurer is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants - legal heirs of the deceased.[Para No.31]

    As already discussed above, the accident is not in dispute. The claim was under Section 163A of the M.V. Act. The policy was cancelled as on the date of accident i.e., 04.05.2014. The policy was not in force as on the date of accident. Therefore, the appellant - Insurer is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. It is respondent No.6, owner of the vehicle who is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant - Insurer has to pay the compensation at the first place and recover the same from the owner is unsustainable.[Para No.37]

Unlawful possessor can not seek injunction against the true owner

It is settled law that no injunction could be granted against the true owner at the instance of persons in unlawful possession. It is true that the appellants placed reliance in their plaint on resolutions passed by the municipality on 11.11.72 and 29.11.72. A reading of those resolutions would prima facie show that possession would be taken where the acquisition proceedings have become final and land acquisition proceedings would not he pursued where award has not been made as on the date of the resolutions. In this case since the acquisition proceedings have become final, then necessarily possession has to be taken by the Corporation for the public purpose for which the acquisition was made. In that context the question arises whether the appellants can seek reliance on two resolutions. They furnish no prima facie right or title to the appellants to have perpetual injunction restraining the Corporation from taking possession of the building. The orders of eviction were passed by due process of law and had become final. Thereafter no right was created in favour of the appellants to remain in possession. Their possession in unlawful and that therefore, they cannot seek any injunction against the rightful owner for evicting them. There is thus neither balance of convenience nor irreparable injury would be caused to the appellants.[Para No.9]

    It would thus be clear that in a suit for perpetual injunction, the court should enquire on affidavit evidence and other material placed before the court to find strong prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of granting injunction otherwise irreparable damage or damage would ensue to the plaintiff. The court should also find whether the plaintiff would adequately be compensated by damages if injunction is not granted. It is common experience that injunction normally is asked for and granted to prevent the public authorities or the respondents to proceed with execution of or implementing scheme of public utility or granted contracts for execution thereof. Public interest is, therefore, one of the material and relevant considerations in either exercising or refusing to grant ad interim injunction. While exercising the discretionary power, the court sould also adopt the procedure of calling upon the plaintiff to file a bond to the satisfaction of the court that in the event of his failing in the suit to obtain the relief asked for in the plaint, he would adequately compensate the defendant for the loss ensued due to the order of injunction granted in p favour of the plaintiff. Even otherwise the court while exercising its equity jurisdiction in granting injunction has also jurisdiction and power to grant adequate compensation to mitigate the damages caused to the defendant by grant of injunction restraining the defendant to proceed with the execution of the work etc., which is retrained by an order of injunction made by the court. The pecuniary award of damages is consequential to the adjudication of the dispute and the result therein is incidental to the determination of the case by the court. The pecuniary jurisdiction of the court of first instance should not impede nor be a bar to award damages beyond it pecuniary jurisdiction. In this behalf, the grant or refusal of damages is not founded upon the original cause of action but the /consequences of the adjudication by the conduct of the parties, the court gets inherent jurisdiction in doing ex debito justitiae mitigating the damage suffered by the defendant by the act of the court in granting injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding with the action complained of in the suit It is common knowledge that injunction is invariably sought for in laying the suit in a court of lowest pecuniary jurisdiction even when the claims are much larger than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court of first instance, may be, for diverse reasons. Therefore, the pecuniary jurisdiction is not and should not stand an impediment for the court of first instance in determining damages as the part of the adjudication and pass a decree in that behalf without relegating the parties to a further suit for damages. This procedure would act as a check on abuse of the process of the court and adequately compensate the damages or injury suffered by the defendant by act of court at the behest of the plaintiff.[Para No.14]