B. S. A. SWAMY, J.

( 1 ) THE owner of the vehicle is the appellant before this court. He filed this L. P. A. assailing the order of the learned single Judge in A. A. O. No. 1904 of 1989 dated 13. 11. 1997 wherein the order of the Tribunal apportioning the compensation payable by the owner and the insurance company to the third parties was reversed and the entire liability to pay the compensation was fastened on the insured, i. e. , the owner of the vehicle.

( 2 ) THE facts are not in dispute. The truck that was involved in the accident was insured with respondent No. 1 under policy no. 4256106318 on 28. 12. 1985 and the same is in force up to 27. 12. 1986. Before expiry of the insurance policy the appellant herein issued a cheque on 28. 12. 1985 for a sum of Rs. 3,343 for renewal of insurance policy by one more year. But the cheque seemed to have been returned by the bank with an endorsement not arranged for by its note dated 2. 1. 1986, which was marked exh. B-2. It is the case of the respondent insurance company that by its letter dated 8. 1. 1986, the insured was informed that the cheque was dishonoured. It is interesting to note the last para of the note, which reads as follows:"please note that under the regulations we are not on risk in respect of the above policy in the absence of valid payment of premium. Please remit us immediately the premium to enable us to assume risk subject to your confirmation that there has been no loss so far. "it is also interesting to note on the top of this note the following words are found registered/ad . It is the further case of the insurance company that on 27. 12. 1986 after having informed the insured that the above-mentioned policy is cancelled from the inception since the premium cheque was bounced, the endorsement is issued for our accounting purpose only.

( 3 ) HAVING filed the xerox copies of these documents Exhs. B-3 and B-4, the insurance company did not adduce any evidence to show that these two letters were served on the insured by the insurance company.

( 4 ) IN this factual background, it seems that the vehicle met with an accident at 9 a. m. on 23. 5. 1986 at Bhoodevi Cheruvu and one Demudu who was working in the lorry died. The legal heirs of Demudu filed m. V. O. P. No. 15 of 1987 against the owner of the vehicle as well as the insurance company. The Tribunal in its order dated 27. 7. 1989 having awarded compensation of Rs, 28,500 with 12 per cent per annum interest from the date of petition observed that the amount be paid by the owner of the vehicle as well as the insurance company jointly and severally. Since we are not concerned with the rest of the decree, we are not referring to that aspect.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order the insurance company filed C. M. A. No. 1904 of 1989 before the learned single Judge. The main contention raised by insurance company was that since the cheque issued by the appellant herein towards premium for issuance of the insurance, policy was bounced there is no valid contract between the insurance company and the insured to indemnify him as and when the vehicle meets with an accident during the subsistence of the policy. This found favour with the learned single Judge and allowed the c. M. A. filed by the insurance company. Aggrieved by the said order and decree the owner of the vehicle filed this appeal.

( 6 ) MR. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Seema malhotra, 2001 ACJ 638 (SC), wherein the Division Bench of the Supreme Court has taken the view that since the cheque involves promise to pay money and the insured failed to pay the premium promised, the insurance company need not perform its part of promise. Their Lordships further held that an agreement made without consideration is void. In that view of the matter their Lordships held that mere issuance of cheque will not create an obligation on the part of the insurance

Click Here to Read the rest of this document