What if the cheque given for payment of premium of insurance policy is dishonoured & . What is the meaning of “Arising out of use of Motor Vehicle”:

What if the cheque given for payment of premium of insurance policy is dishonoured & . What is the meaning of “Arising out of use of Motor Vehicle”:

cheque given for payment of premium of insurance policy is dishonoured

Reference may be made to the ratios laid down in the cases of

Deddappa v/s National Insurance Com. Ltd., reported in (2008)

2 SCC 595 = AIR 2008 SC 767 = 2007 AIR SCW 7948 and

United India Insurance Com. Ltd v/s Laxmamma, reported in

2012 ACJ 1307 (SC). In both these judgments, it has been held

that when cheque given for payment of premium of policy, is

dishonoured and on that count Insurance Company cancels the

policy by intimating the insured of such dishonour of cheque

before the date of accident, then in such situation Insurance

Company cannot be held liable to pay amount of compensation

but if insurer fails to intimate the insured about such dishonour

and cancellation of policy before the date of accident, then in

such situation insurer is held liable to pay amount of

compensation and Insurance Company may prosecute its remedy

to recover the amount paid to the claimants from the insurer.

. What is the meaning of “Arising out of use of Motor Vehicle”:

Legislature has advisedly used the expression 'arising out of

the use of motor vehicle' and not 'connected with the use of motor vehicle' under Sections 140, 163A and 166 of the Act

and, therefore, there must be more direct and pronounced

linkage or nexus between the use of motor vehicle and the

accident which has resulted. A mere casual connection is not

sufficient.

 To decide the such issue one may advantageously refer to the

judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court, reported as Shivaji

Dayanu Patil and Anr. v. Vatschala Uttam More, (1991) 3 SCC

530 = AIR 1991 SC 1769. In the said case, Hon'ble Apex Court

considered at length, the questions whether the fire and

explosion of the petrol tanker in which deceased lost his life

could be said to have resulted from an accident arising out of

the use of a motor vehicle, namely the petrol tanker. The court

answered the question in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour

of the claimant and against the insurance company.

13.3. It is true that the case Shivaji Dayanu Patil (supra) arose from the claim for no fault compensation under section 92A of the

1939 Act (u/s 163A of the New Act). All the material facts were

considered at length by Hon'ble Apex Court in above referred

case and, therefore, said principle is also applicable in the claim

petition preferred u/s 166 of the Act.

Ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivaji

Dayanu Patil (supra) is also relied upon by Hon'ble Apex Court

in several decisions, namely, Samir Chanda, v/s Managing

Director, Assam State Transport Corporation, reported in AIR

1999 SC 136 and Smt. Rita Devi v/s New India Assurance Co.

Ltd., reported in AIR 2000 SC 1930 and New India Assurance

Co. Ltd. v. Yadu Sambhaji More, reported in AIR 2011 SC 666.

13.5. Similar view has been taken in the case of Kalim Khan v/s.

Fimidabee, reported in AIR 2018 SC 3209 = 2018 ACJ 2015

(SC). Where deceased succumbed to the injuries while he was

working in his field and a rock from adjacent field fell on him. In

the adjacent field digging for well had been going on. The

digging machine was powered by using battery of a tractor.