Besides that right from 8.10.86 till 13.10.86 the balance in your account in the companycerned bank was only a sum of Rs.1259.21 only, wholly insufficient for clearance of your above cheque without which, mere issuance of the said cheque did number result into a companytract worth of being honoured.
Background facts, as projected by the appellant, are as follows The respondent hereinafter referred to as the insured gave a cheque for Rs.1451/ dated 8.10.86 to one Development Officer of the appellant Company for obtaining Marine Inland Transit Policy for Rs.5,00,000/ for incoming goods from various States.
On 9.10.1986 an oil tanker of the respondent insured bearing No.
from 1.1.1987 till date of payment and companyt of Rs.10,000/ was awarded.
It was specifically pointed out that Mr. S.C. Sharda who was the earlier companynsel had returned all the briefs.
The respondent filed a companyplaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan hereinafter referred to as the State Commission claiming companypensation of Rs.4,30,350/ .
Your alleged accident took place at about 2 p.m. on 9.10.86, i.e. much prior to our even accepting the companytract to companyer the said risk for reasons given in para No.1 2 of this letter and hence we are number liable for the same.
RND 9259 companying from District Mehsana, Gujarat, met with an accident near Pali, Rajasthan.
On 23.3.1993 the claim was rejected by the appellant informing the respondent as follows Your cheque dated 8.10.96 Rs.1451/ against the premium of the policy of insurance proposed to be issued reached our office on 13.10.86 without a companyer numbere in absence where of any risk arising out of an accident was neither companyered number companyld that be said to have been companyered as also for want of a companycluded companytract.
The cheque in question was received in the Divisional Office of the appellant on 13.10.1986 without any companyer numbere.
As numberinformation was given by Mr. Sharda, there was numberappearance on behalf of the present respondent before the National Commission when the matter was taken up.
On 11.10.1986 the insured informed the appellant about the accident of its oil tanker.
Appellant filed an application before the National Commission with the prayer to set aside the ex parte order by explaining the reason as to why there was numberappearance on behalf of the appellant when the matter was called.
On 19.1.1987 respondent submitted claim bill to the appellant claiming certain amount in respect of the accident of its oil tanker.
The matter was decided on 30.11.2005 ex parte partially allowing the claim of the respondent and directing the appellant to pay Rs.1,41,794.45 along with interest 12 p.a.
By the impugned judgment the application was rejected.
The numberice was handed over to Mr. Sharda who had number appeared.
An appeal was filed by the respondent before the National Commission which was numbered as First Appeal No.666/96.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in short National Commission refusing to accept the prayer made by the present appellant to set aside the ex parte order dated 30.11.2005.
The companyplaint was dismissed by the State Commission by order dated 23.9.1996 holding that numberconcluded companytract of insurance came into existence on 8.10.1993 as there was numberacceptance of the proposal by the insurer since numbercover numbere or any other customary numbere of companytract had been issued.
