Important Points:
" Where the Tribunal exonerates the insurer from the liability erroneously and the owner who is consequently made liable is not aware or otherwise prevented by circumstances from preferring an appeal challenging the exoneration of the insurer, the victim might be deprived of compensation which he/she is entitled for the loss caused on account of the accident. Such an interpretation of Section 173, according to me, would go against the social welfare provisions contained in Chapter XI of the Act. The contention taken by the learned counsel for the insurer as regards the maintainability of the appeal is, therefore, rejected.
" The burden would then shift to the party who wants to rely on the presumption to satisfy the court by leading oral or documentary evidence to prove the service of such article on the addressee [See Green View Radio Service v. Laxmibai Ramji [(1990)4 SCC 497] and Kulkarni Patterns Pvt. Ltd. v. Vasant Baburao Ashtekar [(1992) 2 SCC 46]. This rebuttal of the presumption drawn against the addressee would, of course, depend on the veracity of the statement of the party.

1. The claimant in a proceedings for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has come up in this appeal challenging the decision of the Tribunal in exonerating the insurer of the vehicle from the liability to indemnify its owner.

2. The claimant sustained injuries in a motor accident took place on 12.08.2008. The insurer of the vehicle contested the claim petition contending that they are not liable to indemnify the owner, as the cover note issued by them for the vehicle on 16.05.2008 was cancelled on 23.05.2008, when the cheque issued by the owner towards the premium of the policy was dishonoured. The Tribunal accepted the case of the insurer and exonerated them from the liability holding that the vehicle was not covered by a policy at the time of accident. It is the said decision of the Tribunal that is under challenge in this appeal preferred by the claimant.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel for the insurer.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the cover note which was as good as a policy issued by the insurer for the vehicle on 16.05.2008 was valid till 15.05.2009 and since the accident took place within the said period, the Tribunal ought not have exonerated the insurer from the liability. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that in so far as the issuance of the cover note is admitted by the insurer, its cancellation and the intimation thereof to the owner should have been established by the insurer to claim exoneration from the liability. According to the learned counsel, the insurer has not established that the cancellation of the cover note was intimated to the owner.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurer contended that an award exonerating the insurer from the liability can be challenged only by the owner of the vehicle who would be consequently liable to pay compensation to the claimant. According to the learned counsel, the claimant cannot be said to be a person aggrieved in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) to prefer an appeal challenging the award in such cases. In other words, according to the learned counsel, the appeal is not maintainable. On facts, it was contended by the learned counsel that the insurer has established before the Tribunal that they have sent a communication to the owner informing him about the cancellation of the cover note, under certificate of posting. Placing reliance on the Full Bench decision of this court in Prasanna v Kabeer (2018 (4) KLT 722), the learned counsel submitted that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the same is presumed to have been received by the owner. It was the contention of the learned counsel that the owner has not established that he has not received the communication sent by the insurer in this connection and the Tribunal cannot, therefore, be found fault with for having exonerated the insurer from the liability.

6. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

7. I shall first deal with the contention taken by the learned counsel for the insurer as to the maintainability of the appeal. The contention is seen taken in the light of the expression 'any person aggrieved by an award' contained in sub section (1) of Section 173 of the Act. True, if the insurer in the proceedings is exonerated from the liability, the owner would be liable to pay compensation to the claimant. But, that does not mean that only the owner would be aggrieved in such cases. In a case where the owner pays to the claimant the compensation directed to be paid or where the claimant would be in a position to realise the compensation from the owner without much difficulty, the claimant may not be aggrieved by the award. But, in cases where the claimants are not in a position to realise the compensation from the owners, they would certainly be aggrieved by the award. Even in cases where the claimants wo