THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.24549 of 2000 Dated:20.11.2009 Between: M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited. ….Petitioner And The Legal Services Authority, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.24549 of 2000 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) United India Insurance Company Limited assails the award by Lok Adalat, Warangal, under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (the Act, for brevity) on 02.10.1996. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed O.P.No.564 of 1995 under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Warangal, claiming Rs.75,000/- for the death of their daughter Harathi Prasad, aged eight years, in a motor accident involving lorry bearing No.ATK 7808. Petitioner filed counter and contested the matter denying the allegations that the vehicle involved was insured by the petitioner. In the meanwhile, first respondent passed the impugned award. The Deputy Manager of the United India Insurance Company Limited, Warangal Branch, who filed affidavit states that no notice was issued to the petitioner and no authorized signatory signed the compromise memo before the Lok Adalat. It also alleged that on verification it has been found that the owner of the vehicle gave cheque dated 24.03.1995 for Rs.1,418/- drawn on Syndicate Bank, Warangal, towards insurance premium, but the same was dishonoured. Therefore, the policy bearing No.050600/31/94/4702/21/95/4 was duly cancelled, and the same was received by the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the insurance company cannot be made liable. This Court has perused the material available on record. After giving anxious consideration, this Court is convinced that the writ petition is misconceived. When the award was passed on 02.10.1996 the insurance company took its own time and filed the writ petition after a period of lapse of about five years on 11.12.2000. Secondly, even if cheque given towards premium has been dishonoured there should be proper evidence to show that the cancellation was duly sent to the insured and that evidence was produced before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. A perusal of the affidavit would show that there is a clear admission that the insurance company filed counter affidavit denying the policy, but subsequently, according to them, they dug into policy particulars very much later to the date of award of Lok Adalat. For these two reasons the writ petition is misconceived. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 20.11.2009 vs