The insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner in respect of the statutory liability unless the policy is cancelled and intimated to the insured before the accident.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in CMA(MD).No.574 of 2017:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, to set aside the award of Rs.8,65,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs sixty five thousand only) passed in MCOP.No.759 of 2010 dated 15.06.2016, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum Special Court for E.c. & NDPS Act Cases, Pudukottai (Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer).

Prayer in CMA(MD).No.575 of 2017:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, to set aside the award of Rs.3,95,700/- (Rupees three lakhs ninety five thousand seven hundred only) passed in MCOP.No.761 of 2010 dated 15.06.2016, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum Special Court for E.c. & NDPS Act Cases, Pudukottai (Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer)

Common Judgment:

Both the appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pudukkottai in MCOP.Nos.759 of 2010 and 761 of 2010 primarily challenging the liability and quantum.

2. According to the claimants, two boys namely Lakshmananraj and Mathivanan aged 14 years studying in IX standard, after attending Independence Day function in their School on 15.08.2010, had alighted from the bus in Keelathur Bus Stop. While they were walking on the left corner of the road, an Innova Car belonging to the first respondent was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and had dashed against both the boys. In the said accident, Lakshmananraj sustained serious injuries and he passed away in the hospital. The other boy Mathivanan sustained grievous injuries. The parents, brother and sister of Lakshmananraj had filed MCOP.No.759 of 2010 and the injured Mathivanan had filed MCOP.No.761 of 2010 seeking compensation.

3. The owner of the Innova Car had remained exparte and the second respondent insurance company in both the appeals had filed a counter contending that the boys were negligent at the time of crossing of the road. They have further challenged the quantum of compensation as prayed for. In both the claim petitions, the insurance company had filed an additional counter contending that the owner of the Innova Car had issued a cheque towards premium of the insurance policy and the same was dishonoured. Therefore, the insurance policy was cancelled and on the date of the accident, there was no insurance policy. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

4. The Tribunal after considering Exhibit P1-F.I.R, Exhibit P4-Motor Vehicle Report, Exhibit P5-Rough Sketch and the evidence of PW1, had arrived at a finding that the accident has happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Innova Car belonging to the first respondent. The Tribunal further found that the legal heirs of Lakshmananraj and the injured Mathivanan are entitled to receive compensation due to the death/injuries sustained in the said accident.

5. The insurance company had contended that the previous policy of the insurance company had expired on 20.07.2010. A cheque was issued by the first respondent/ owner of the car for renewal of the premium on 13.07.2010. The said cheque was returned by the Bank due to insufficient funds on 16.07.2010. Immediately, on 20.07.2010, a notice was addressed to the insurer intimating about the cancellation of the policy. A copy was also marked to the Regional Transport Office. The accident has taken place only thereafter on 15.08.2010. Therefore, the insurance policy that was issued based upon the cheque was already cancelled by the insurance company even before the date of accident and the same has also been intimated to the insurer. In such an event, on the date of the accident, there was no subsisting insurance policy and hence, the company is not liable to pay compensation.

6. The Tribunal had relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in 2012 (5) SCC 234 (United India Insurance Company Vs. Lax