IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2009 / 16TH POUSHA 1930 MACA.No. 25 of 2007(A) ---------------------------------- OP(MV).NO.930/2002 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA. .................... APPELLANT/ 3RD RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, TRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. MR. RAJAN P.KALIYATH. RESPONDENTS/ CLAIMANT & R1 & 2: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. LUCY, W/O.BABU, VADAKKEKARA HOUSE, VENGALLOOR KARA, VAZHITHALA POST, MANAKKADU VILLAGE. 2. PRINCE JOSEPH, KARAMAYIKOYICKAL, PERUVA POST. 3. ANILKUMAR, S/O.THANKAPPAN, PALLIYARATHU HOUSE, PIZHAKUKARA, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE. R1 BY ADV. MR.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.25 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 6th day of January 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha in O.P.(MV)No.930 of 2002. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.48,200/- with a direction to the insurance company to pay the amount and get it reimbursed from the first respondent. The insurance company has challenged the same before this Court. Or, in other words, the short point that arises for determination is whether the insurance company is entitled to get a total exoneration of the liability. According to the insurance company a policy was issued on the basis of a cheque issued by the owner which when presented for encashment returned with the endorsement 'insufficiency of funds' and thereafter the said policy was cancelled and the accident had taken place long after the cancellation of the policy. Learned counsel for the insurance company would contend that since the accident had taken place after the cancellation of the policy it has no liability to indemnify the owner and therefore it should be exonerated MACA 25/2007 -:2:- from the liability. Learned counsel had brought to my notice the decision of the Apex Court in Dedddappa v. National Insurance Co.Ltd.(2008(1) KLT 296(SC). It was a case where the policy was cancelled prior to the date of accident and all concerned have been intimated thereabout. Therefore the Apex Court held that the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability. 2. Now the short question is what will be the legal effect if the registering authority is not informed about the cancellation of the policy. Under Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act taking of an insurance policy is mandatory to cover the risk to a third party and the non-taking of a policy is made an offence and it entitles the authorities concerned to cancel the permit or even refuse permission to ply the vehicle through the road. The object behind that section is that a third party is not expected to know whether a valid policy is taken for the vehicle or not, though it is a statutory duty cast upon the owner to take a policy. When the insurance company issues a policy it will operate against all third party risks and when it cancels the policy there is a duty cast upon it to inform the transport authorities concerned about the cancellation of the policy so that due intimation is given to take further action on the basis of the same. Therefore it is rather mandatory to inform the transport authorities as well regarding MACA 25/2007 -:3:- the cancellation of the policy. Therefore the question to be next considered is whether there is evidence to show that such intimation has been given. Learned counsel for the insurance company gives me a copy of a letter with the caption regarding dishonour of the premium of the cheque and there is copy to 4 authorities and the 4th is the registering authority. From that document, it cannot be seen that a notice had been given to the registering authority. When the insurance company has taken specific care to produce the acknowledgment card regarding the cancellation of the policy relating to the owner. There is a duty cast upon it at least to produce some documents or adduce oral evidence to show that the registering authority has been duly intimated. In the absence of such one cannot hold that the insurance company has succeeded in proving that it has complied with all statutory requirements and procedure so as to get totally exonerated from the liability. Therefore, though on different grounds, I hold that the insurance company has to pay third party risk and get it recovered from the owner of the vehicle. There is nothing to interfere with the decision rendered by the Tribunal and the appeal is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/- MACA 25/2007 -:4:-