Chitambaresh, J.

1. It is settled law that the liability of the insurer to indemnify the third parties subsists unless the insurance coverage is cancelled by the insurer and intimation thereof has reached the insured and the registering authority. On whom does the burden lie to prove that the insurer has so intimated about the cancellation on the dishonour of the cheque received towards premium? This is the question referred to the Full Bench for the sake of clarity in view of the following observations in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Laxmamma and others [(2012) 5 SCC 234]:

“26. In our view, the legal position is this: where the policy of insurance is issued by an authorised insurer on receipt of cheque towards the payment of premium and such a cheque is returned dishonoured, the liability of the authorised insurer to indemnify the third parties in respect of the liability which that policy covered subsists and it has to satisfy the award of compensation by reason of the provisions of Sections 147(5) and 149(1) of the MV Act unless the policy of insurance is cancelled by the authorised insurer and intimation of such cancellation has reached the insured before the accident. In other words, where the policy of insurance is issued by an authorised insurer to cover a vehicle on receipt of the cheque paid towards premium and the cheque gets dishonoured and before the accident of the vehicle occurs, such insurance company cancels the policy of insurance and sends intimation thereof to the owner, the insurance company's liability to indemnify the third parties which that policy covered ceases and the insurance company is not liable to satisfy awards of compensation in respect thereof.” (emphasis supplied)

Is it sufficient if there is proof that the insurer has sent intimation about the cancellation of the insurance coverage to the insured and the registering authority or is it necessary to prove that the addressees have received the same? A reference to Section 147(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) is apposite and the same is extracted hereunder:

“147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.-

(1) xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx

(2) xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx

(3) xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx

(4) Where a cover note issued by the insurer under the provisions of this Chapter or the rules made thereunder is not followed by a policy of insurance within the prescribed time, the insurer shall, within seven days of the expiry of the period of the validity of the cover note, notify the fact to the registering authority in whose records the vehicle to which the cover note relates has been registered or to such other authority as the State Government may prescribe.”

2. A cover note mentioned in Section 147(4) of the Act precedes the certificate of insurance and would normally be issued by the insurer or its agent on receipt of a cheque from the insured towards premium. The cover note is an interim insurance binding on the parties as per its terms till it is superseded by a certificate of insurance issued subject to the realisation of the cheque. The cheque issued by the insured towards premium may get dishonoured due to a variety of reasons like 'insufficiency of funds' or 'difference in the signature of the holder'. The insurer under such circumstances is justified in cancelling the insurance coverage and intimating the same to the insured as well as the registering authority. The insurer has on many occasions sent the intimation aforesaid under 'Certificate of Posting' as provided under Rule 195 of the Indian Post Office Rules, 1933 which was in vogue earlier. Such a certificate is issued to the sender to afford an assurance that the letter or other articles entrusted to servants or messengers for posting have actually been posted. The practice of issuing a Certificate of Posting has since been discontinued by deleting Rule 195 of the Rules aforesaid by Notification dated 31.1.2011 of the Union Governmen