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

Excerpt:
- cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under.....orderc.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.....

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.