When an insurer proves that a policy was cancelled ab initio due to the dishonour of a premium cheque and that due intimation was provided to the insured, the insurer is entitled to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the 3^rd respondent/insurer in O.P.(MV)

No.900 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha challenging their liability to pay the amount awarded by the tribunal. The respondents herein were the respondents 1 and 2 before the tribunal.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-

On 15.01.2014 at 09.15 am, while the claimant was riding the motor cycle bearing reg. No. KL-07-V-1150, a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-6G-2007 hit on the motorcycle driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of the accident, the claimant had sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹1,00,000/-.

3. The 1^st respondent/driver and the 2^nd respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement contended that there was no valid policy at the time of accident. The policy issued against the lorry in favour of the second respondent stood cancelled ab initio in view of the dishonour of the cheque issued by the 2^nd respondent towards premium. It was also contended that the claimant did not wear head gear. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A10 and Exts.B1 to B6 were marked and RW1 was examined. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹27,244/- rounded to ₹27,300/- with interest @ 7% per annum as compensation under various heads against the 3^rd respondent/insurer. Challenging the liability to pay the award passed by the tribunal, the insurance company has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant/insurance company. Though notice was served on respondents 1 and 2, they chose not to appear before this Court.

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the insurer had specifically contended in the written statement that the vehicle involved in the accident was not having a valid insurance policy at the time of accident. The cheque dated 22.02.2013 issued by the 2^nd respondent towards the premium amount was dishonoured on 12.03.2013. The learned counsel relied on Ext.B4 intimation issued by the insurer informing the 2^nd respondent that the cheque dated 22.02.2013 had been dishonoured. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company also relied on Ext.B6 outward register to prove that the intimation regarding the dishonour of the cheque dated 22.02.2013 was issued to the owner of the vehicle on 27.03.2013. They further relied on the deposition of RW1, the Manager of the insurance company, who deposed that the cheque issued by the owner was returned for insufficient funds and proper intimation had been given to the owner of the vehicle regarding the dishonour of the cheque. 6. On a perusal of the award, it is seen that even before the tribunal the driver as well as the owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. Though notice was served on them, they chose not to appear before this Court. Though the insurance company had raised a contention in the written statement and adduced evidence through RW1 that the cheque dated 22.02.2013 issued towards payment of the premium amount was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, the Tribunal found that the insurance company had failed to prove that, proper intimation regarding the dishonour of the cheque, had been given to the owner of the vehicle. In the present case, the insurance company has adduced oral as well as documentary evidence to establish that due intima