Challenge in this revision by the complainant is to the order dated 3.6.2008 of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore allowing appeal against the order dated 15.12.2007 of a District Forum and dismissing the complaint.  The District Forum had allowed the complaint with direction to respondent/ opposite party-Insurance Co. to restore the petitioner’s claim petition and to decide it on merit etc.

                    Only  few  facts  need  be   noticed  for   deciding  this revision.   Petitioner  No. 1  owned    vehicle  bearing  registration  No. KA-04 Z-9075.  Towards renewal of the policy of insurance of that vehicle for the period 24.11.2006 to 23.11.2007, the petitioner gave cheque No. 339619 dated 23.11.2006 for a sum of Rs. 12,787/- towards premium to the respondent.  On cheque being presented for encashment by the respondent-Insurance Co., it was returned back with the endorsement  ‘other reason (OD date expired)’.   It was alleged that the vehicle met with an accident on 25.12.2006.  On claim made being repudiated by the letter dated 16.3.2007 by the Insurance Co. the petitioner filed complaint which, on contest, was disposed of by the Forum and appeal against Forum’s order was decided by the State Commission in the manner noted above.  

Thrust of argument advanced by Shri Amit Wadhwa for the petitioner is that the petitioner was intimated of the dis-honour of premium cheque only through the letter dated 16.3.2007 by  Insurance Co.  Had the Insurance Co. informed of the bouncing of  cheque immediately after it was returned by the Bank, the petitioner would have paid the premium amount and the Insurance Co. was, therefore, deficient in service and the order of State Commission is not legally tenable.  However, the submission is without any merit.  Sub-Sections (1) & (2) of Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 being material, are re-produced below:-

“(1)            No insurer shall assumed any risk in India in respect of any insurance business on which premium is not ordinarily payable outside India unless and until the premium payable is received by him or is guaranteed to be paid by such person in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed or unless and until deposit of such amount as may be prescribed, is made in advance in the prescribed manner.

(2)  For the purpose of this section, in the case of risks for which premium can be ascertained in advance, the risk may be assumed not earlier than the date on which the premium has been paid in cash or by cheque to the insurer.”

Reading of the said provisions would show that an insurer assumes the risk only when the premium is paid in advance either in cash or by cheque.   It was, thus, for the petitioner to have ensured that the amount of premium cheque issued on 23.11.2006 was received by the respondent- Insurance Co.  The Insurance Co. was not under any legal obligation to intimate the petitioner about dis-honouring of the premium cheque.  Since the cheque in question on presentation for encashment was, admittedly, dishonoured the Insurance Co. was fully justified in repudiating the claim on ground of non-receipt of premium amount.  There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.