HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1586 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the award in O.P.No.292 of 2000 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, where-under a claim for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- was made by the petitioner in the injuries received by him in the motor accident and the lower Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.20,874/- and held the owner of the vehicle only liable and excluded the liability of the insurance company. Appellant herein is the petitioner in O.P.No.292 of 2000. 2. According to the case of the petitioner, on 15.12.1999 when the petitioner was performing the duty as a Police Constable at Ramanthapur, near T.V. studio, Matador van bearing No. AP 21 U 378 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, as a result of which, he received multiple injuries and he was treated in Kamineni hospital. Respondents 1 and 3 are said to be the owners of the vehicle. The Insurance Company contended that there was no valid policy covering the risk and the claim for compensation is excessive and untenable. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the claim for compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is too low and the appellant was in hospital from 16.12.1999 to 10.01.2000 and he was operated and the quantum of compensation granted towards the medical expenses is too meagre and the quantum of expenses for the pain and suffering is also low. So far as the 2nd claim is concerned, the petitioner himself claimed only a sum of Rs.9,500/- under the head of pain and suffering, which was granted. So far as the medical expenses is concerned, Ex.A.5 is discharge summary and it discloses the petitioner was in Kamineni hospital from 16.12.1999 to 10.01.2000. He examined PW.2 to prove his treatment. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts, I feel the ends of justice would meet if a compensation of Rs.25,000/- is granted for medical expenses. The petitioner was evidently said to be an employee and there is nothing to show that he was on leave and suffered any loss of earnings. Even otherwise leave is availed, there cannot be said to be any loss of earnings. There is no proof of permanent disability. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the petitioner will be entitled to enhancement of compensation. I feel the ends of justice would meet if a compensation of Rs.50,000/- is granted. 4. So far as the liability of the insurance company is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the policy of insurance was admittedly given and it was said to have been cancelled and there was no intimation to the concerned authorities and therefore, the liability cannot be exonerated. Evidently, policy of insurance is said to have been given on 23.10.1999 effective till 22.10.2000. The incident has happened on 15.12.1999. As can be seen from Ex.B.2 intimation was given by the insurance company on 29.10.1999 about the dishonour of the cheque and Ex.B.1 letter was also given about the cancellation of the insurance policy by the 2nd respondent. In fact, during the trial, no attempt was made by the petitioner to prove whether necessary information was communicated to the registering authorities or not and therefore, the reliance of the decision reported in Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Hyderabad Vs. Pinjary Hussainamma[1] has no application. Further-more, the law is very much settled that by mere issuance of a policy of insurance, it will not fasten the liability when the cheque has been dishonoured and the liability cannot be made on the insurance company. The question of issue of notice to the registering authorities, in such circumstances, does not arise when once owner of the vehicle has been informed about the dishonour of the cheque and also the cancellation of the policy of insurance. 5. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the appeal is allowed in part granting compensation of Rs.50,000/-. However, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the 3rd respondent was found to be the owner of the vehicle and hence the claim can be executed against respondents 1 and 3 and it is for them to establish as to who is the owner of the vehicle in between them. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 05.08.2011 Note: Issue C.C. by one week (B/o.) INL [1] 2000-ALT-3-109