The main legal point established in the judgment is the insurer's liability to indemnify the owner of the vehicle, based on the prompt communication of the cancellation of the policy and the legal provisions related to the cancellation of the policy.

Heard Mr. G. Jalan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for respondent.

2. The claimant has challenged the judgment and order of the tribunal dated 28.01.2014 passed by the learned Member, MACT No.1, Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No. 1418/2009 to exonerate the insurer of the truck to pay the awarded compensation in place of the insured i.e. owner of the vehicle. No other issue has been raised in this appeal.

3. The case of the claimant is that on 27.03.2009 her husband while proceeding towards Tinsukia from Guwahati in a bus bearing No. AS-01/P- 0036 and when the bus arrived near Bokakhat town on the national highway 37, a truck bearing No. WB 23 B/4592 coming from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the said bus as a result of which the victim sustained grievous injury on his person and ultimately succumbed to his injuries at Jorhat Civil Hospital on the same day. According to the claimant, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck.

4. During trial, the opposite party No.1 and 3 i.e. owners of the vehicles did not participate in the proceeding and the case was proceeded ex-parte against them. The opposite party No.2 i.e. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the truck, contested the case before the tribunal and submitted written statement. Before the tribunal, two witnesses were examined and the claimant produced number of documents in support of her claim. The contesting opposite party No.2 i.e. insurer of the truck examined one witness i.e. DW 1 to prove the policy in respect of the vehicle which had been lapsed at the relevant time and as such took the plea that the company is not liablie to pay any compensation.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as the documents available in the record, the learned tribunal has awarded compensation amounting to Rs.4,97,000/- with interest at the rate 6% per annum in favour of the claimant and directed the opposite party No.1 i.e. owner of the alleged truck to pay the awarded amount.

6. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned member has failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective in as much as there was a clear admission of DW that no documentary evidence of dispatch of Ext-E i.e. the alleged cancellation letter was produced and that no evidence of the said letter being served on the insured i.e. the owner of the truck was on record. In view of such admitted position and lack of evidence to show that the letter of cancellation of policy (Ext-E) was actually sent and received by the insured, the learned Member, MACT ought to have held that the insurer of the vehicle is to pay the awarded amount. The exoneration of the insurer to pay the compensation is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.

7. It is further submitted that no information of the cancellation of the policy was sent by the insurer to the concerned RTO and there was nothing for the tribunal to presume that on the date of accident there was no policy coverage. Hence, the learned tribunal ought not to have exonerated the insurer of the vehicle to pay compensation to the claimant.

8. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Member, MACT has failed to consider that the plea of cancellation of the policy due to alleged bouncing of cheque was not specifically pleaded in the written statement nor any additional written statement was filed by taking the said plea. Hence, the evidence regarding Ext-E and the alleged cancellation of policy being adduced by the defence witness was beyond the pleading and could not have been taken into consideration to exonerate the insurer for payment of compensation. According to learned counsel for the appellant, even assuming but not admitting that the cheque in question has dishonoured, the insurer still could not have cancelled the policy since the said cheque did not perta