Andekar Laxmi Bai and ors. Vs. Syed Rahmathulla Quadri and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
.....after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board..........this court. second respondent contested the claim inter alia on the ground that inasmuch as the cheque issued by the first respondent towards the premium for the policy bounced, it cancelled the policy issued in favour of the first respondent and so it is not liable to pay the compensation payable to the claimants.3. after considering the evidence on record, the tribunal awarded an amount of rs. 96,880/- as compensation to the appellants and passed an award only against the first respondent, but dismissed the claim against the second respondent on the ground that it cancelled the policy due to the bouncing of the cheque issued by the first respondent relying on section 64vb(1) of insurance act, 1938. questioning the dismissal of the claim against the second respondent, the claimants.....

Judgment:
ORDER

C.Y. Somayajulu, J.

1. Appellants, who are the widow and children of Andekar Manoji (deceased) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the respondents alleging that the deceased died due to an accident caused by the driver of the lorry belonged to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent due to his rash and negligent driving.

2. First respondent chose to remain ex parte both before the Tribunal and this Court. Second respondent contested the claim inter alia on the ground that inasmuch as the cheque issued by the first respondent towards the premium for the policy bounced, it cancelled the policy issued in favour of the first respondent and so it is not liable to pay the compensation payable to the claimants.

3. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 96,880/- as compensation to the appellants and passed an award only against the first respondent, but dismissed the claim against the second respondent on the ground that it cancelled the policy due to the bouncing of the cheque issued by the first respondent relying on Section 64VB(1) of Insurance Act, 1938. Questioning the dismissal of the claim against the second respondent, the claimants have preferred this appeal.

4. The point for consideration is Whether the second respondent is not liable to pay the compensation as contended by it?

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant strongly relying on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur AIR 1998 SC 588 and New India Assurance Co. Limited v. Rula 2003 (2) SCC 223, contended that in view of Section 147(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the respondent is bound to pay the amount payable to the appellants though it might have cancelled the policy subsequently.