The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation if the contract of insurance has been cancelled and all concerned have been intimated thereabout, as per the legal principle established in the case of Daddappa and others Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd, (2008) ACJ 581.

JUDGMENT

S.G. Pandit, J. - The insurance company is before this Court in this appeal assailing the liability fastened on it under the judgment and award dated 24.09.2009 passed in M.V.C. No.203/2002 on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Fast Track Court-I at Koppal (for short 'the Tribunal'), and praying for absolving it from the liability to pay the compensation.

2. The appellant-insurance company was respondent No.2, respondent No.1 was the claimant and respondent No.2, owner of the truck, was respondent No.1 before the Tribunal.

3. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation for the accidental death of one Kamalamma in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 15.06.2002 when Kamalamma was going for nature call, a lorry bearing registration No.KA- 30/3283 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to Kamalamma, due to which she died on the spot. It is contended that the deceased Kamalamma was aged 42 years and was earning Rs.3,500/- per month.

4. On issuance of notice, respondent No.1 appeared and filed written statement denying the petition averments. Respondent No.1 also stated that as on the date of the accident, the vehicle was covered under the insurance policy issued by respondent No.2- insurance company. Respondent No.2-insurance company also appeared and filed its written statement. It denied the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Further, the insurance company specifically contended that there was no insurance policy issued to the vehicle in question as on the date of the accident. The cheque issued by the owner towards payment of the premium was dishonoured and hence, the insurance company had cancelled the policy and the same was intimated to the owner.

5. The claimants, in support of their case, got examined P.W.1 and two more witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 apart from marking documents as Exs.P.1 to P.11. Respondent No.2-insurance company examined R.W.1 and marked documents as Exs.R.1 to R.5. The Tribunal, on consideration of the entire material on record allowed the claim petition in part granting compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, and fastened the liability to pay the compensation on respondent No.2-insurance company. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company is before this Court in this appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellantinsurance company, the learned counsel for respondent No.1-claimant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2-owner of the lorry.

7. The learned counsel for the appellantinsurance company would submit that, as on the date of the accident, the policy was not in existence as the same was cancelled. It is his submission that the owner of the lorry had issued a cheque towards payment of premium and the same was dishonoured by memo dated 23.01.2002 and subsequently, as per Ex.R.4, intimation was sent to the owner of the lorry regarding cancellation of the policy. Therefore, it is his submission that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation since there was no contract. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Daddappa and others Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd, (2008) ACJ 581 . Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal.

8. The learned counsel for respondent No.2- owner of the lorry submits that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation directing the insurance company to pay the compensation and thereafter to recover the same from the owner of the lorry. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

9. The learned counsel for respondent No.1- claimant also would support the judgment and award of the Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

10. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, t