( 1 ) THE insurer is in appeal challenging the liability fastened, on it.

( 2 ) THE brief facts as would be necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows: one Irayya Suresh Haladevarnath died as a result of an accident caused by a truck belonging to the third respondent herein, on 7. 5. 2002. His parents, the respondents 1 and 2 herein filed a claim petition seeking compensation on the death of their son. It is seen that the offending vehicle was covered under a policy of insurance issued by the appellant, on 15. 1. 2002. It however, transpires that on 5. 2. 2002, the cheque which was issued towards payment of premium, by the insured is said to have been dishonoured. This fact was intimated to the insured-third respondent. He was also intimated of the cancellation of policy for want of premium, by a registered letter dated 13. 2. 2002, by the appellant. In terms of Rule 10 of Third Party Insurance Rules, the appellant had also intimated the concerned Regional Transport officer, Kolhapur, as regards the cancellation of policy. Documents in respect of such despatch of intimation of cancellation of policy, by registered post, have been produced in evidence and marked as Ex. R1 to R17. In the face of this sequence of events, the tribunal held that the appellant was liable to satisfy the claim towards compensation notwithstanding the contention that the policy was cancelled for want of premium, prior to the date of accident. It is this, which is under challenge.

( 3 ) THE Counsel for the appellant would submit that the policy stood cancelled and the appellant has taken steps in the manner known to law to intimate the due cancellation of the policy not only to the third respondent who was the insured but also to the concerned Regional Transport Authority and has produced the necessary documents in support of this contention. The tribunal has, however, fastened the liability on the insurer which is wholly out of place and the Counsel would submit that the appeal be allowed.

( 4 ) PER contra, the Counsel for the claimants and the Counsel for the insured would submit that notwithstanding the alleged cancellation of the policy, which fact was never intimated to the third respondent as the third respondent was never served with a copy of the notice of dishonor of cheque, the third respondent has remained unaware of the cancellation of the policy and the claim of the appellant that there was due notice of cancellation of policy is incorrect. The tribunal has thus held in favour of the respondent following the ratio of the judgments in the following cases: (a) ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs INDERJIT kaur AND OTHERS where a bus had met with an accident, its policy of insurance was issued by the appellant on 30. 11. 1989, the premium for the policy has been paid by cheque, the cheque having been dishonoured, a letter has been sent by the appellant to the insured on 23. 1. 1990 stating that since the cheque had not been encashed, the premium of the policy has not been received and therefore, the appellant would not be at risk. The premium was thereafter, paid in cash, on 2. 5. 1990. In the meantime, on 9. 4. 1990, an accident had taken place whereby the bus had collided with a truck, whose driver died. A claim petition came to be filed and the appellant denied the claim asserting that under Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, 1938, no risk was assumed by an insurer unless the premium thereon had been received in advance. The tribunal, having rejected the appellant's contention and awarded compensation, the same was carried in appeal. The appeal was summarily dismissed by the High Court and the appellant was before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that despite the bar created by Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, the appellant, an authorised insurer, had issued a policy of insurance to cover the bus without receiving the premium therefor. By reason of the provisions of Section 147 (5) and 149 (1) of the motor Vehicle

Click Here to Read the rest of this document