IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2010 / 16TH ASWINA 1932 MACA.No. 419 of 2008(B) ----------------------------------- [O.P(MV).NO.1053/2002 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA] .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.3: ------------------------------------------------ M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO.LTD, 46, WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI 600 014, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER/ AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SORRENTO BUILDING,NO.6 FIRST FLOOR ,LATTICE BRIDGE ROAD, ADYAR, CHENNAI- 600 020. BY ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ALICE,D/O. REBECA, GREEN VILLA, VALLIPPARA, KUZHAKKADU, POOVACHAL P.O. 2. SABITHA KARIM, D/O. ABDUL KARIM, CHIRAMEL BHAVAN, PEZHUMOODU, POOVACHAL P.O. 3. E.ABDUL KARIM, ROADARIKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, PEZHUMOODU, POOVACHAL P.O. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.419 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara in OP(MV) No.1053/2002. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.28,950/- and a direction is given to the third respondent-injured to deposit the amount and thereafter to realise it from the first respondent. Aggrieved by the decision of imposing the liability on the insurance company, insurance company has come up in appeal. 2. Heard. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: A perusal of the award would reveal that the accident had taken place on 13.06.2002. A policy was issued to the first respondent on 26.04.2002 on the basis of a cheque issued. The cheque when presented for encashment was dishonoured. In the light of the said dishonour, the policy was cancelled and thereafter a fresh policy was issued. The subsequent policy relates to the period from 18.06.2002 to 17.06.2003. Now it is contended by M.A.C.A. No.419 of 2008 2 the insurance company that since the policy originally issued has been cancelled and intimated it has no liability and therefore, the insurance company cannot be made liable to pay. This position has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the decision reported in Deddappa V. National Insurance Company Limited (2008 (1) KLT 296) wherein it has been held that when the cheque issued towards the premium is dishonoured and policy is cancelled and that the insured and RTO are informed about the cancellation of the policy, then the insurance company would not be liable to pay. The information to RTO also is a mandatory thing for the reason that Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act specifically states that a vehicle cannot be plied without a valid insurance policy. So when the cheque is dishonoured and the policy is cancelled, unless the intimation is given to the RTO, they cannot take steps to seize the vehicle or cancel the permit for plying without a valid policy. So the court held when the policy is cancelled with due intimation to the owner as well as the RTO, then only insurance company can claim total exoneration of the liability. Here the total exoneration M.A.C.A. No.419 of 2008 3 of the liability cannot be granted for the reason that RTO has not been informed. The insurance company can pay and recover the amount. The finding of the Tribunal is in confirmity with judicial pronouncement. Therefore, the award does not call for any interference and appeal fails and it is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE ln