The main legal point established in the judgment is that when the insured fails to pay the premium or when the cheque issued by the insured is dishonoured, no liability can be imposed upon the insurer. The insurer cannot be made liable to satisfy the claim if the contract is cancelled and all concerned are intimated about the same.

Heard Shri Limaye, learned Counsel for appellant. None for respondent nos.1 and 2 though appear to be served. Record further reveals that in spite of service of notice, as respondents were not represented by their Counsel, matter was adjourned for today with a view to give them opportunity to defend the appeal on merits. In spite of that, none appears for respondents.

2. This appeal takes exception to judgment and award dated 15/1/2017 passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.839/2002 holding appellant Insurance Company and respondent no.2/owner of truck jointly and severally liable to pay amount of Rs.39,500/- to respondent no.1 with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, i.e. 25/11/2002 till realisation with further direction to appellant Company to satisfy the award and then recover it from the owner of the truck by initiating recovery proceedings.

3. Shri Limaye, learned Counsel for appellant, has not disputed fact of accident and involvement of Truck bearing Registration No. MTV 2833 in accident nor has seriously disputed fact of respondent no.1 suffering injuries resulting in 10% permanent disability . It is, however, contended that the impugned judgment and award needs to be quashed and set aside as the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that policy, which was issued in favour of respondent no.2/owner of truck was cancelled much prior to date of accident as Cheque No.003534 issued by respondent no.2 to appellant was dishonoured by its Banker and this fact was intimated to appellant on 26/6/2002. It is submitted that on receiving such information from the Bank on 27/6/2002, appellant informed about cancellation of policy to respondent no.2 by issuing registered letter and received acknowledgment thereof. It is contended that since appellant has established beyond doubt that for the reasons as aforesaid, policy was cancelled and since appellant has complied with mandatory requirement by informing about cancellation of insurance policy to respondent no.2 by registered post, no liability can be fastened upon appellant as the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured on the date of accident, which occurred on 19/8/2002. It is further submitted that learned Tribunal has wrongly considered law laid down in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. vs. Inderjeet Kaur and others (1998 ACJ 123 (SC) and New India Assurance Company vs. Rula and others (2002 (2) TAC 1(SC). It is, therefore, contended that the impugned judgment and award insofar as it holds appellant/insurer liable to pay compensation amount jointly and severally with respondent no.2/owner of vehicle is liable to be quashed and set aside. In support of submissions, learned Counsel for appellant has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Laxmamma and others (2012 ACJ 1307).

4. Facts involved in the present appeal can briefly be stated as under :

On 19/8/2002, accident took place involving respondent no.1 while he was proceeding on his bicycle and was given dash by Truck bearing Registration No.MTV 2833, which came from opposite direction in high and excessive speed due to which he suffered injuries to his left thigh and in spite of having medical treatment, sustained 10% permanent disability. It is the case of respondent no.1 that at the time of accident, he was working as a daily wage labourer earning Rs.100/- per day and he was required to spend Rs.20,000/- on medical treatment and thus, he claimed compensation of Rs.1 lakh.

5. Respondent no.2/owner of the truck was proceeded ex parte while appellant/original respondent no.1 resisted the petition by filing written statement (Exh. 15) inter alia denying that accident occurred due to rash driving of Truck Driver. It was further submitted that policy (Exh. 49) was issued in lieu of Cheque No.003534 (Exh. 50) issued by respondent no.2. However, same was