IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 MACA.No. 2102 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.1651/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------- M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1,2, 4 ----------------------------------------------- 1. PAULOKUTTY @ PAULOSE, S/O.CHAKKAPPAN, PUTHANPURACKAL HOUSE, SREEBHOOTHAPURAM SREEMOOLANAGARAM PO, CHOWARA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. 2. K.JOY,72, KAIRALI APARTMENTS, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DIST. 3. BINTU MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, THURUTHEL HOUSE, VETTIMATTAM DHESAM, ALAKKODU VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, 1ST FLOOR, KALLOOKARAN SHOPPING COMPLEX, ANGAMALY-683 572. ADDL.R5 & R6: ADDL5. PHILOMINA, W/O LATE PAULOKUTTY, PUTHAN PURAKKAL HOUSE, KATTAMANA, KADOOPPADAM ROAD, CHOWRA, ALUVA. ADDL.6. JOSE, S/O. LATE PAULOSE , DO-DO ADDL.R5 & R6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.365/10 DTD.5.4.2010 ADV. DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY FOR R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.2102 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in OP(MV)No.1651/2003. The claimant who was found contributorily negligent was awarded a sum of Rs.13,770/= and the 3rd respondent insurance company was directed to pay the amount. The 3rd respondent insurance company has filed this appeal on the ground that the cheque issued by the owner of the mini lorry was dishonoured and subsequently the policy was cancelled and therefore the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the insurance company. The point that arises for determination is regarding the liability of the insurance company when the cheque issued is dishnoured. In the decision reported in Deddappa v. National Insurance Co. Ltd [(2008 (1) KLT 296 (SC)] that point has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It has been held in that case that when the cheque issued : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.2102 OF 2009 towards premium is dishonoured and the policy is cancelled and the insured and the RTO are informed of cancellation of the policy, then the insurance company would not be liable to pay the amount. So, the point which the insurance company has to establish for a total exoneration of the liability is that not only it has cancelled the policy and informed the insured but also the RTO. 3. Here, admittedly no document is produced to show that the RTO or the authority is informed about the cancellation of the policy. The very object behind the same is that under Section 146 of the M.V. Act, no vehicle can be plied without a proper insurance policy. The third party who is involved in the accident may not know anything about the policy at all. When a cheque is dishonoured and it is informed to the authority, the authority gets the right to even seize the vehicle and prevent the vehicle from being operated on the route. Therefore in order to get a total exoneration, until and unless the RTO is informed, the insurance company has to pay the amount to the third party who is involved in the accident. But at the same time : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.2102 OF 2009 since there is a dishonour of the cheque and the policy is without consideration, the owner cannot escape from the liability and therefore, the insurance company will be entitled to realise the amount from the owner. 4. The tribunal in this case had observed that the insurance company can proceed against the owner. But it was highly technical holding that the cheque was issued only by the proprietor of the company and the policy is issued in the name of one Joy and therefore there cannot be any order against that person. He has been served with notice. He has to explain which he had done and therefore when the insurance officer comes and deposes before the court and produces document, that has to be believed and it has to be held that the cheque was issued towards premium of the policy which was issued. Therefore, I find that the insurance company will be entitled to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle, who is impleaded as the 1st respondent in the case. 5. In the result, the MACA is disposed of whereby the finding of the tribunal that the insurance company has to : 4 : M.A.C.A.No.2102 OF 2009 pay the amount to the third party is upheld and a direction is given in favour of the insurance company to realise the amount from the owner of the vehicle i.e., the 1st respondent in the original petition after satisfaction of the award in favour of the claimant. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 5 : M.A.C.A.No.2102 OF 2009