Principles

·  ROAD TRAFFIC—Insurance-—Conditions in policies of no effect—Road Traffic Ordinance 1942 S. 53 — Does not protect insured.

·  INSURANCE — Automobile — Conditions in policies of no effect — Road Traffic Ordinance 1942, s. 53 — Does not protect tile insured.

An insurance policy condition requiring the insured to report the occurrence of any accident or claim is not void as to the insured for repugnance to Road Traffic Ordinance 1945. s. 53 (now Road Traffic Act 1962, s. 57) since that section merely protects third parties in the event the insured breaches such condition.

An insurance policy condition requiring the insured to report the occurrence of any accident or claim is not void as to the insured for repugnance to Road Traffic Ordinance 1945. s. 53 (now Road Traffic Act 1962, s. 57) since that section merely protects third parties in the event the insured breaches such condition.

Judgment

Advocate: Ibrahim Mohamed Ibrahim…………..for applicants

MA. Abu Rannat, C.J., June 1, 1961:— Plaintiffs are the owners of lorry No. 2K 7974. On March 5 1959 the lorry knocked down a man in Renk District and caused his Jeath. On January 18, 1960 the lorry driver was tried and fined £S. 100, which was paid by the plaintiffs. The defendants are the Insurance Company and the lorry was insured against third-party risks. The plaintiffs informed the Insurance Company On December 20, 1959 of the commencement of the proceedings they also informed it of the date of trial on January 29, 1960.

Clause 1 of the conditions of the Insurance Policy reads as follows:

“Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of any accident and in the event of any claim. Every l claim, writ, summons and process shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to the Company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any accident which may give rise to a claim under this policy.”

It is clear from the evidence that the plaintiffs did not inform the Insurance Company (defendants) of the accident unül after the lapse of more than nine months from its occurrence.

The plaintiffs claimed the recovery of the £S.100 from the defendants and the defendants resisted the claim on the ground that there is a clear breach of Clause I of the conditions attached to the Insurance Policy.

The District Judge dismissed the claim on the ground that there was a breach of the policy on the part of plaintiffs, and his decision was upheld by the Honourable Judge of the High Court.

Court: M.A. Abu Rannat, CJ.

An application for revision has been submitted by advocate Ibrahim Mohamed Ibrahim on behalf of plaintiffs. The advocate contends that Clause I of the conditions attached to the Policy is of no effect, as it is re pugnant to Road Traffic Ordinance 1942, s..53  This section reads as follows:.

            Any condition in a policy of insurance providing that no liability shall arise under the policy or that any liability so arising shall cease in the event of some specified thing being done or omitted to be done after the happening of the event giving rise to a claim under the policy, shall, as re . such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under Section 50 of this Ordinance, be of no effect;

Provided that nothing in this section shall be taken to render void any provision in a policy requiring the person insured to repay to the insurer any sums which the latter may have become liable to pay under the policy and which have been applied to the satisfaction of the claims of third parties.”

Our Section 53  is similar to the English Road Traffic Act 1930, s. 58. A commentary on this section appears in Shawcross, Motor insurance, 219-220 (2nd ed. 1949) where it is stated:

"The section was designed to prevent the rights which third parties might acquire under the Third Parties Act, 1930, being defeated by some breach of condition on the part of the assured committed after his liability to the third party had been incurred. Conditions were (and subject to the effect of this subsection still are) commonly placed in policies whereby if, for example, the assured fails to report the acci dent out of which his liability to the third party arose, or makes an admission of such liability to such third party, or refuses to allow the insurers to have control of proceedings brought against him in respect thereof, or refuses to arbitrate a disputed claim, the insurers are not liable on the policy. Usually these conditions were (and are) made conditions precedent to the insurer’s liabili to make any payment on the policy.”

This means that our section does not protect the insured and it was only intended to protect the third parties.

The application has no merits and it is hereby summarily dismissed.