Insurance liability persists if a cover note is issued despite premium disputes, provided no valid cancellation occurs.

1. This order shall govern the aforesaid both the appeals, i.e., M.A. Nos. 1871 and 2039 of 2009, as both are arising out of the same award and relating to the same accident. M.A. No. 1871 of 2009 has been filed by the insurance company and M.A. No. 2039 of 2009 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.

2. The facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 7.8.2006 at about 12.30 a.m., in the night Nanalal was going from Kariya to Sailana in loading Tempo bearing engine No. R6A20340 and chassis No. 005915, as per the instructions of the respondent No. 8 for carrying goods, the driver of the said loading Tempo driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently, turned the said Tempo turtle and as a result, Nanalal died. The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 had filed a claim petition under S.163 - A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against appellant and rest of the respondents before the First Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ratlam (MP) for compensation of Rs. 9,65,000 on the death of Nanalalji Bhil.

3. The owner and insurer of the vehicle contested the claim and have denied all the material allegations of the claim petition. The Tribunal after framing issues and after recording the evidence of the parties allowed the claim of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and have awarded Rs. 1,45,500 in their favour, against the appellant and owner and driver of the vehicle. Learned counsel for insurance company has contended that learned Tribunal has failed to consider the fact that at the time of accident offending Vikram Tempo was not insured with the appellant insurance company and has grossly erred in not considering the fact that the copy of the cover note No. GD 3137067 showing the vehicle to be insured from 14.7.2006 to 13.7.2007, is not valid as no premium was paid to the insurance company on the said date and all the five original copies, Exhs. D1 to D5 of the cover note are with the appellant insurance company, which clearly proves that the cover note was prepared but not issued to the concerned person due to non - payment of the premium amount. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in believing the photocopy of the cover note No. GD 3137067 filed by the claimants and in disbelieving the version of the appellant insurance company.

4. It is contended that learned Tribunal has grossly erred in not disbelieving this fact that the said vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company from 30.8.2006 to 29.8.2007 vide insurance policy No. 3003/1092044/00/000, which is shown to have been prepared in lieu of cover note No. GD 3246150. The aforesaid policy shows that since premium was not paid to the appellant insurance company at the time of preparation of cover note No. GD 3137067, hence, it was not issued to the concerned person and all the original copies of the cover note No. GD 3137067 remained with the insurance company and it were not issued to any one. But, when the premium was paid later on, cover note No. GD 3246150 has been issued to the concerned person insuring the vehicle from 30.8.2006 to 29.8.2007. Hence, the vehicle was not insured with the appellant insurance company on the date of accident, i.e., 7.8.2006, so the appellant insurance company ought to have been exonerated from its liability on this count alone. He further contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in disbelieving the statement of Jayesh Jagarwal, DW 1, who has clearly stated that the said vehicle was insured for a period from 30.8.2006 to 29.8.2007 vide insurance policy No. 3003/1092044/00 / 000, without risk of any passenger and the cover note No. GD 3137067 f