United India Insurance - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Decides: Who Pays When a Car Insurance Policy is Cancelled?

9Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Decides: Who Pays When a Car Insurance Policy is Cancelled?

This Supreme Court case reaffirms the principle that an insurance policy stands rescinded upon dishonour of the premium cheque and intimation to the concerned parties, absolving the insurer from statutory liability. However, applying the "pay and recover" doctrine, the insurer was directed to pay the awarded compensation to the third-party claimants and was permitted to recover the same from the vehicle owner. Facts Of The Case: On August 22, 2005, Dheeraj Singh died when his motorcycle was hit from behind by a speeding truck (HR 46 A 1020). The deceased, a 36-year-old computer engineer, was found to be earning ₹3,364 per month. His dependents filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appellant, National Insurance Company Ltd., disowned liability by contending that the...

Supreme Court Rules: Insurer Must Pay Full Claim If It Didn’t Plead ‘Limited Liability’ Earlier

The Supreme Court ruled that an insurer's contractual liability under a personal accident cover is distinct from its statutory third-party liability. The defense of "limited liability" must be specifically pleaded and proved before the Tribunal; it cannot be raised for the first time in appeal. The insurer was thus liable to pay the full compensation awarded. Facts Of The Case: The deceased, who was the brother of the car owner, was driving the vehicle when its right rear tyre suddenly burst. This caused the car to go out of control, topple, and resulted in a fatal head injury that led to his death. The car was also occupied by the owner, his wife, and the deceased's wife, all of whom sustained injuries. The claimants, the deceased's widow, minor children, and parents, filed for compensa...

Homeowner Wins 7-Year Battle: Supreme Court Orders Insurer to Pay for Rain-Flooded Basement

The Supreme Court held that heavy rainfall causing sudden basement flooding constitutes a covered "flood/inundation" peril under standard insurance policies, rejecting the insurer’s "seepage" exclusion. It ruled that insurers cannot arbitrarily disregard initial survey reports confirming flood damage in favor of belated contradictory assessments. The Court remanded the matter to NCDRC solely for compensation quantification under the policy terms, emphasizing objective claim evaluation aligned with contractual obligations. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Gopal Dikshit, owned a property at 50, Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi, insured under a ₹1.5 crore House Holder Policy (No. 2219042615P115431073) by United India Insurance for the period March 13, 2016, to March 12, 20...