IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 1706 of 2004() ---------------------------------- OPMV.25/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT IN THE OP: --------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, TP CLAIMS CELL, VETTUKATTIL BUILDINGS, JOSE JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-16. BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN THE O.P: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. REJI K.T, S/O. THAMPI, KILIRTHIL, PAYYAPADI. 2. MADAVAN, ANIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, NATTAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. K.M.MATHEW, KALAYIL HOUSE, MANARCADU P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA.No. 1706 of 2004() ORDER ON I.A.3804 OF 2004 IN MACA NO. 1706 OF 2004 DISMISSED SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE 25.11.2008. / TRUE COPY / PA TO JUDGE M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1706 OF 2004 --------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV) No.25/98. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs. 19,000/- with 9% interest and the third respondent Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount. 2. In the appeal it is contended that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount for the reason that, the policy issued by it has been cancelled on account of the dishonour of the cheque issued. The accident had taken place after the cancellation of the policy and therefore it is not liable to pay the amount. The claimant is represented, the driver is served and the owner in spite of paper publication has not responded to the same. The question that arises for determination is whether the Insurance Company is liable at all or whether it is entitled to have right of reimbursement from the owner. 3. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company had drawn M.A.C.A. 1706/2004 -2- my attention to para 6 of the award of the claims tribunal. The accident had taken place on 5.9.97. A policy was issued but subsequently it is seen that the cheque issued for Rs. 9,510/- dated 17.3.97 bounced back for in sufficiency of funds. Notice was issued to the owner for return of the policy and he did not surrender. It was cancelled by Ext. B7 letter dated 10.4.97. That is prior to the date of the accident. Since the accident had taken place on 5.9.97 admittedly it is after cancellation of the policy. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company had brought my attention to the decision of the apex court reported in Deddappa v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [2008 (1) KLT 296 (SC)]. It was a case where a cheque was issued on 15.10.97 and dishonoured on 21.10.97 and the Insured and RTO were informed about the cancellation of policy by letter dated 6.11.97. The accident occurred on 6.2.98 and the Honourable Apex Court held that “If contract of insurance has been cancelled and all concerned intimated thereabout, Insurance Company would not be liable to satisfy claim”. The salient features of the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act mandates that no vehicle can be plied on the road without a valid policy. It was for the purpose of safe guarding M.A.C.A. 1706/2004 -3- the interest of public at large, that is why when a cheque is issued and it is dishonoured and the policy is cancelled, it must be brought to the notice of the Transport Authorities so that they can seize the vehicle or cancel the permit to ply the vehicle through the road. So it is really a mandatory requirement to inform the Regional Transport Authority also. Otherwise the public may not know about the existence or non existence of a valid policy. In this case there is no evidence tendered to show that even a notice had been issued to the Transport Authority. When it is so, it has to be held that all concerned have not been intimated which would totally exonerate the Insurance Company from the liability. That does not mean that the owner can escape on the basis of the same. When the cancellation of the policy has been duly intimated and he had not taken any steps to get it renewed or take a fresh policy, then the Insurance Company shall not be left without any remedy but should be given the right to recover the amount from the owner. 4. Therefore I hold that this is a fit case where the owner must be directed to reimburse the amount to the Insurance Company. In other words the Insurance Company shall pay the compensation to the claimant and get it reimbursed from the owner M.A.C.A. 1706/2004 -4- by the execution of the very same award. In the result, M.A.C.A is partly allowed and the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount due to the claimant and on satisfaction of the amount is entitled to realise the said amount from the owner of the vehicle by executing the very same award. Needless to say, any amount deposited shall be credited and balance need be deposited by the Insurance Company in favour of the claimant. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm