JUDGMENT :

(This case was heard through Video Conferencing)

1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants challenging the impugned Award dated 21.06.2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode at Gobichettipalayam in MCOP.No.70 of 2010.

2. The Appellants/claimants have challenged the impugned Award on the following grounds:

(a) The Tribunal has erroneously exonerated the liability of the third respondent Insurance Company.

(b) The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not a just compensation and therefore it has to be enhanced.

3. The Tribunal under the impugned award exonerated the liability of the third respondent Insurance Company and has directed the respondents 1 and 2 to pay a compensation of Rs.4,75,000/- to the Appellants/claimants as detailed hereunder:

Head Amount awarded by

the Tribunal

Loss of Income Rs.4,40,000 (Rs.40,000 x 11)

Loss of Love and Affection Rs.30,000 (Rs.10,000/- x 3 )

Funeral expenses Rs.5,000

Total Rs.4,75,000/-

4. The Tribunal has exonerated the liability of the third respondent Insurance Company on the ground that on the date of the accident i.e. on 22.08.2008, there was no valid Insurance Policy. Since the third respondent Insurance Company had already cancelled the Insurance Policy issued in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 on the ground that the cheque towards insurance premium got dishonored for insufficiency of funds, the Insurance Company was exonerated from liability.

5. Heard Mr.M.Nandha Kumar, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mr.J.Michel Visuvasam, learned counsel for the third respondent. The respondents 1 and 2 have remained exparte both before the Tribunal as well as this Court.

6. This Court has perused and examined the materials and evidence available on record before the Tribunal.

7. Ex.R8 is the communication sent by the third respondent Insurance Company to Mr.V.Anantha Kumar, the insured who was the previous owner of the vehicle intimating him about the cancellation of the Insurance Policy issued in his favour due to non realization of premium cheque issued by him. Ex.R9 is the extract from the dispatch register maintained by the third respondent Insurance Company which reveals that Ex.R8 was sent to Mr.V.Anantha Kumar on 27.05.2008.

8. As seen from the aforementioned documents, it is clear that on the date of the accident i.e. on 22.08.2008, there was no valid Insurance Policy.

9. Ex.R2 is a notice sent by the third respondent counsel to the present owner of the vehicle viz., the first and second respondents herein intimating them that the Insurance Policy issued in favour of the previous owner Mr.V.Anantha Kumar was cancelled even before the date of the accident and therefore there is no effective valid Insurance Policy standing in the name of the insured on the date of the accident. Ex.R6 is the returned cover to prove that the notice sent to the present owner of the vehicle viz., the second respondent herein has been returned unserved.

10. The Tribunal has taken into consideration all the aforementioned documents and only thereafter has exonerated the liability of the third respondent on the ground that on the date of the accident i.e. on 22.08.2008, there was no valid Insurance Policy standing in the name of the respondents 1 and 2 or in the name of the previous owner viz., V.Anantha Kumar.

11. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the Appellant in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Laxmamma and Others reported in (2012) 5 SCC 234 in fact supports the case of the third respondent Insurance Company more than the Appellant. In the decision referred to supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that intimation of the cancellation of the Insurance Policy has to be sent to the insured in order to enable the Insurance Company to get themselves exonerated from any liability. In the case on hand, the Insurance Company has complied with all the requirements by intimating the insured about the can