IMPORTANT POINT
The liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation to a claimant is not absolved solely due to the dishonor of the premium cheque if the cancellation of the policy is not adequately proven to have been communicated to the insured.

COMMON JUDGMENT

Dr. G.Radharani, J. - M.A.C.M.A.No.3797 of 2011 is filed by the insurance company aggrieved by the award and decree passed in O.P.No.1098 of 2007 dated 15.02.2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'MACT') - cum - Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and X-Objection No.15 of 2019 is filed by the injured claimant, seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The parties are hereinafter referred as claimant and respondent No.2 as arrayed before the MACT.

3. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

4. As per the claim petition, the claimant was aged about 26 years, he was working as an employee in Osmania University, M.Ed. College and was getting a salary of Rs.4,800/- per month by the date of the accident. On 02.02.2007 at about 02:45 PM, while the claimant was proceeding on his Bajaj Pulsar vehicle bearing No.AP-10-AV-8320 from Hyderabad towards Hanumakonda and when reached Kazipet Junction at the same time a trolley lorry bearing No.AP-16-TV-4347 driven by its driver with high speed in a rash and negligent manner hit the vehicle of the petitioner, due to which he sustained fractures to both legs, head injury, lacerations and abrasions to his hands. Immediately, he was shifted to Rohini Hospital, Hanumakonda and on the advice of the hospital authorities, he was shifted to NIMS Hospital. The doctors therein found that his legs were fractured due to the crush injury to left foot and he was operated. But the doctors stated that three more operations were required to be performed. He further stated that due to the accident, he sustained permanent disability, his life became miserable and his movements were totally restricted. As such, claimed compensation from respondents 1 and 2, the owner and insurer of the trolley lorry bearing No.AP-16-TV-4347.

5. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.

6. The respondent No.2 filed counter. As per the counter filed by the respondent No.2, the cheque issued by respondent No.1 towards premium for an amount of Rs.25,525/- on 26.07.2006 drawn on M/s. ICICI Bank, Vijayawada, when presented for collection was dishonored for the reason 'insufficient funds' vide memo dated 29.07.2006. It was specifically mentioned in the premium receipt that if payment was made through cheque, the policy would be valid subject to realization of the cheque and in case of dishonor, the policy would automatically stand cancelled. A notice was issued by the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company to respondent No.1 on 03.08.2006 informing the dishonor of the cheque and demanding return of policy certificate. But inspite of receiving the notice by respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 did not remit the premium amount nor surrendered the policy certificate, as such, the policy issued in favor of respondent No.1 was cancelled. The respondent No.2 contended that they were not liable to pay compensation as policy was not subsisting as on the date of accident.

7. During the course of enquiry, the appellant - claimant examined himself as PW.1 and examined the Assistant Professor, Department of Plastic Surgery, NIMS as PW.2 and the Financial Controller of NIMS as PW.3 and the doctor who issued the disability certificate as PW.4. Exs.A1 to A15 were marked on behalf of the appellant - claimant. The Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company at Secunderabad was examined as RW.1 and Exs.B1 to B8 were marked on behalf of the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company.

8. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-16-TV-4347 and the claimant sustained grievous injuries in the said accident.

9. With