JUDGMENT :

M.G. Giratkar, J.

The present appeal is against the judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Wardha in Claim Petition No. 169 of 2008 dated 22nd November, 2012.

2. The brief facts, which give rise to filing of the present appeal, are that, on 12th August, 2008, when the petitioner was proceeding on his bicycle, the offending truck bearing Registration No. MTG-9998 driven by its driver rashly and negligently, gave dash to bicycle. The petitioner sustained fracture to his right leg. He was admitted in Kasturba Hospital from 12.08.2008 to 29.08.2008. He has undergone operation and incurred medical expenses. A report was lodged. The truck driver was prosecuted by the police. The truck was owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2 (in original petition).

3. Injured filed claim petition for grant of compensation. The appellant (original respondent No.2) appeared and filed Written Statement at Exh.14. Specific defence was raised by the appellant stating that the owner of vehicle namely Manohar Gilorkar, resident of Sant Tukdoji Ward, Hinganghat had issued Cheque No. 384105 dated 14th July, 2008 for Rs.14,378/- in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company towards insurance premium. The appellant had presented the said cheque. The said cheque was returned back on 24th July, 2008 with an endorsement "funds insufficient". Thereafter the appellant informed to the owner of truck namely Manohar Gilorkar by letter dated 05th August, 2008 about the dishonour of cheque and also informed that the policy in question is cancelled and the appellant is not liable for any risk in respect of vehicle covered thereunder. The owner was also informed that if he wants to take fresh insurance in that case the premium amount as required to be paid either in cash or by demand draft. The appellant also sent a registered letter in this regard by Registered Post A/D and copy thereof to the Assistant Regional Transport Officer (ARTO) at Wardha. ARTO, Wardha received registered letter. An outward entry of the said registered letter is maintained by the appellant in its despatch register.

4. The defence of the appellant is that the Insurance Company did not receive the amount from the owner of the Truck. Therefore, not liable to pay any compensation. Issues were framed. Claimant-Govardhan adduced his evidence on behalf of his injured son Roshan. The appellant (respondent No.2) examined Gitamani who was working as an Administrative Officer in Butibori branch of National Insurance Company. After hearing both the sides, learned MACT, Wardha allowed the claim petition and directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. owner and Insurance Company to pay jointly and severally the amount of compensation of Rs.35,500/- inclusive of No Fault Liability along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the realization of amount.

5. Heard Shri D.N. Kukday, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Monali Pathade, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1. None appears on behalf of respondent No.2.

6. Shri Kukday, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the insurance company has adduced the evidence of Gitamani. Material documents are also placed on record. The owner of the truck had issued cheque of Rs.14,378/- for the insurance of offending truck. The said cheque (Exh.47) was returned back with an endorsement "funds insufficient". The said information was received by the Insurance Company on 24th July, 2008. Copy of endorsement of bank is filed on record. Thereafter, on 05th August, 2008, owner of the truck namely Manohar Gilorkar was informed that the cheque was dishonoured and, therefore, policy in question is cancelled. Copy of letter is at Exh.48. Vehicle owner Manohar Gilorkar received the said letter. Copy of acknowledgment is at Exh.49. Copy of despatch register of National Insurance Company/appellant is filed on record along with copy of acknowledgment which shows that info