The main legal point established is that in cases of policy cancellation due to dishonoured cheques, the insurer's liability to make payment to the third party continues if there is no effective communication of cancellation to the insured.

( 1 ) THESE appeals have been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation and for saddling the liability on the insurer. They are aggrieved by an award dated 12. 7. 2000, passed by the Fourth Additional Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Morena in Claim Case nos. 78 and 79 of 1999.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that on 17. 6. 1993 when Tejsingh was going from joura to Morena on his motor cycle (CIR 2140), which was dashed by bus (MP 07-9750)driven by Ramsingh, owned by Shiv kumar Sharma and insured with National insurance Co. Ltd.

( 3 ) REPORT of the accident was lodged. Case was registered against the driver at crime No. 122 of 1993. Tejsingh succumbed to the injuries. His age was 23 years. He was an agriculturist and contractor. It was claimed that he was earning a sum of rs. 1,800 per month. Widow and sister of the deceased were dependent upon him. The compensation of Rs. 43,20,000 was claimed.

( 4 ) THE owner of the bus, in the written statement, contended that the deceased himself drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner. The owner and the insurer of motor cycle were also the necessary party. As the vehicle was insured, liability is that of the insurer.

( 5 ) THE insurer, National Insurance Co. Ltd. , filed a written statement contending that the deceased himself was negligent. The vehicle was not insured. A cheque was given by Vasudeo Prasad Sharma to Sudhir kumar Dubey, Development Officer, Datia branch on 3. 8. 1992 containing the premium of Rs. 12,020. Cover note No. 72541 was issued. However, as the cheque was not honoured by the bank, intimation was sent by registered post on 24. 8. 1992 to shiv Kumar Sharma regarding dishonour of the cheque and cancellation of the cover note and the policy. Once the cancellation was intimated, there was no liability on the part of the insurer. The accident had taken place subsequent to cancellation of the policy, as such no responsibility vis-a-vis the third party.

( 6 ) LEARNED Claims Tribunal has held that the accident was the outcome of rash and negligent driving of Ramsingh, the driver of the bus. Owing to the injuries sustained in the accident, Tejsingh died. He was not negligent. The vehicle was not insured as on the date of the accident, as such the insurer has been exonerated from making payment of compensation. Total compensation of Rs. 1,68,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation.

( 7 ) IN M. A. No. 696 of 2000, same vehicle was involved in the accident. The date of accident is different. Accident took place on 4. 1. 1993 when Raghupati, who was the cleaner in the bus, went on the roof of the bus to unload the luggage, all of a sudden, bus was started by the driver lokendra. Raghupati fell down, sustained injuries and died on the spot. Report of the accident was lodged. Age of Raghupati was 20 years. It was claimed that he was earning Rs. 1,800 per month. The widow, minor son and mother of the deceased were dependent upon him. Compensation of Rs. 17,38,000 was claimed.

( 8 ) THE driver and owner, in their written statement, contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver. False case was registered by the police as against the driver. Vehicle was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. , as such liability, if any, was that of the insurer.

( 9 ) INSURER has taken the plea that it was not liable as the cheque which was given was dishonoured. Intimation of cancellation of cover note was issued.

( 10 ) DISSATISFIED with the quantum of compensation, these appeals have been preferred for enhancement of compensation and for saddling the liability on the insurer.

( 11 ) THE cross-objection has also been preferred by the owner. There was delay in filing the cross-objection. However, filing of the cross-objection is superfluous as the claimants have taken the ground agitated in the cross-objection in the appeals itself.

( 12