IMPORTANT POINT
Insurers are liable to indemnify third parties unless the policy is canceled and the insured is notified before the accident occurs.

JUDGMENT :

Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.

The following appeals have been filed by New India Assurance Company Limited and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited :

These appeals are arising out of the judgments and awards dated 29.09.2016, 31.03.2016 and 01.06.2022 passed in the subject MVCs by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT at Athani, [‘Tribunal’, for short].

2. Facts leading to the filing of these appeals are briefly stated: the legal heirs of the deceased and claimants-injured have filed the aforesaid claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the accidental death of one Sri. Shrikant Joshi, and others who were injured in a road accident dated 10.01.2011 on Athani road within the limits of Muragundi Village of Athani Taluk. It is averred that Trax Toofan vehicle i.e., Jeep bearing Reg.No.KA-23-M-8277 with the inmates whilst coming from Gokarna to Athani, near Agrani of Muragundi Village on Athani - Kagawad road, the driver of Tractor bearing Reg.No.MH-10-S-5993 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life, came from the opposite direction and dashed to the jeep. It is further averred that due to the impact of the accident, one of the inmates of the jeep died and others sustained grievous injuries to their vital parts of the body and they were treated in the Wanless Hospital, Miraj and due to the injuries suffered in the accident, some of the inmates suffered disability. They sought compensation.

3. Respondent-Owner of jeep bearing Reg. No.KA-23-M-8277 filed objections denying the contents of the claim petitions. It is averred that the driver of Trax Toofan was driving the vehicle in a moderate speed and it is the driver of the tractor, who was rash & negligent who caused the accident in question. It is further averred that the vehicle owned by him was duly insured with respondent-New India Insurance Company Ltd., and the policy was in force as on the date of accident and the driver of the jeep was holding valid and effective driving license. Hence, he had sought for the dismissal of the claim petitions.

4. The respondent-New India Assurance Company Ltd., (insurer of the jeep) filed written statement denying the contents of the claim petitions. It is averred that the accident was caused due to the negligence of driver of the tractor. It is further averred that the jeep insured with them was a private vehicle, but as on the date of accident, it was used for hire & reward by the deceased and other inmates of the vehicle to go to Sringeri. Hence, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. They sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. The respondent-Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., (insurer of the tractor) filed objections contending that the claim petition is not maintainable and sought for dismissal on the ground that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and without any basis. It is averred that the tractor bearing Reg. No.MH-10-S-5993 was not insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., as on the date of accident. It is further averred that on behalf of the respondent-owner of the tractor, a cheque towards payment of premium was issued and pursuant to the said cheque, cover note/policy was also issued. However, the policy could not be effected, as the cheque issued towards the premium was dishonoured. Hence,