HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILAS&tR Sinaie Bench : Hon'bie Shri Diiio Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. A.Disellant jjsceilaneous Appeal No.759 of 2006 The Oriental insurance Co. Ltd., Near Adarsh Bal Vidya Mandir, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG) versus Ciaimant Driver Owner 1. Smt. Durpati Bai, w/o Chhannu Lal Slnha, aged N<?t known, r/o Gram- Bhaindri, Tahsii-Kurud, District- Dhamtari (CG) 2. Lalchand Chandrakar, s/o Raghunandan Chandratsar, r/o Gram- Bhainsmudi, P.S. Mag'ariod, District- Dhamtari (CG'i 3. Arjundas Sunderani, s/'o Sadurmai Sunderani, r/o Ganjroad, Nayapara, Rajim, Dlstrict-R^fiyr (CG) tant iasurance Appeai u/s 173 ofthe MotorVehictes Act iiscellaneous Aopeai No.76Q of 2008 The Orientai Insurance Co. Ltd., Near Adarsh Bat Vidya Mandir, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG) versus Respondents Smt. Sohaga Bai, w/o Ubhayiai Sahu, aged 40 years, r/o Gram-Katalbod, Tahsil-Kurud, DisSrict- Dhamtari (CG) Chandrakar, s/o Raghunandan Chandrakar, r/o Gram- Bhainsmudi, P.S. Magariod, District- Dhamtari (CG) Arjundas Sunderani, s/o Sadurmai Sunderani, r/o Ganjroad, Nayapara, Rajsm, District-Raipur (CG) 1. 2. Lalchand 3. u/s 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act 2- </ ?•:'•(' Miscellaneoys ApReai No.761of^006 Appellant Insurance The Orientel Insurance Co. Ltd., Near Adarsh Ba! Vidya Mandir, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG) versus Respondents Owner 1. 2. 3. Smt. Pekan Bai, w/o Manrakhan Dewangan, aged 40 years, r/o Gram- Bhainsmundi, Tahsil-Kurud, District- Dhamtari (CG) Lalchand Chandrakar, s/o Raghunandan Chandrakar, r/o Gram- Bhainsmudi, P.S. Magarlod, District- Arjundas Sunderani, s/o Sadurmal Sunderani, r/o Ganjroad, Nayapara, Rajim, District-Raiour (C<3) Aopeal u/s 173 of tne Motor Vehicles Act Misce!!aneoysABpeaLNo,762^of2006 Aopellant Insurance The Orientai Insurance Co. Ltd., Near Adarsh Bal Vidya Mandir, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG) versus Respondents 1. Dasruram Yadav, s/o Jangalram Yadav, r/o Kundel (Kareli), Tahsil- Kurud, District- Dhamtari (CG) 2. Latehand Chandrakar, s/o Raghunandan Chandrakar, r/o Gram- Bhainsmudi, P.S. Magarlod, District- Dhamtari fCG) 3. Arjundas Sunderani, s/o Sadurmal Sunderani, r/o Ganjroad, Nayapara, Rajim, District-Raipur (CG) Appeai u/s 173 ofthe IVIotor Vehicles Act Present : Shr; Abhishek Sinha wlth Shri Ghanshyam Patel, counsel for the appellant/insurance company. No one appears for the respondents though served. ^ 2 s< (Passed on 31~August, 2007) Heard. (2) This order shaii govem Misceilaneous Appeals No.759/2006, 760/2006, 761/2006 and 762/2006. (3) All the abovementioned miscellaneous appeals arisQ out of a common award dated 23-07-2005 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Ciaims Tribunal, Dhamtari (henceforth 'the MACT') in Claim Cases No.148/2004, 145/2004, 149/2004 and 504/2004, whereby compensation has been awarded in ail the four claim cases against the appeliant/jnsurance company. (4) !t is not disputed in these appeals that the accident had occurred on 03-09-2003 after the policy issued on 21-07-2003 and expiring on 20-07-2004 was canceHed by the insurance company vide letter issued dated 11-08-2003 due to dishonour of the cheque issued by the insured on 01-08-2003. It appears from the record that the insurance company had served a notice on the owner of the vehicle under Order 12 Ruie 2A of the Code of Civii Procedure for admitting the fact of canceiiation of policy due to dishonour of cheque. it also appears that the owner of the offending vehicie did not fiie any repiy to the notice under Order 12 v- ^w^. -K^LA-(^r><- Ruie 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure.the fact that the cheque issued by the~ msured towards premium was dishonoured and the policy was canceiied by a ietter dated 11-08-2003 by the insurance company must be deemed to be admitted in this case. ^ (5) In all the four appeals by the insurance company, Shri Abhishek Sinha with Shri Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel for the appeilant/insurance company made two-fold submission: (i) That the policy of insurance having been canceHed prior to the date of accident due to the dishonour of the cheque of the amount of premium paid by the insured, the insurance company is not liabie for payment of compensation. t (ii) !t was urged that in view of the decision of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajendra Wourya and others, lyiiscellaneous Appeal (C.) No. 174/2007 dated 14-08-2007 ifthis Court comes to the conclusion that the insurance company is liable then the right to recover the amount of compensation paid by the insurance company from the owner of the vehlcle shouid be granted. (6) As regards the firet submission, in Oriental tnsurance Co. Ltd. vs. incSei-iit Kaur and otters, (1998) 1 SCC 37-S, in similar cH-cymstances, it was held that it was the appellant itseif, who was responsible for its predicament. tt had issued the policy of insurance upon receipt oniy of a cheque towards the premium in contravention of the provisions of Section 64VB of the,Act, 1938. The pubiic interesf ^ ^o, that a policy of insurance serves must, therefore, cleariy prevail over the interest of the appeliant. Therefore, in view of the provision contained in sub-section (1) ofSection 149 ofthe,Act, 1988 as regards the iiabiiity of the insurance company towards third parties is concerned, it is wholly immaterial whether the poiicy of insurance once issued by the insurance company was cancelted prior to or after the accident. (7) The above decision has been relied on by this Court in National Insurance Company Llmited vs. Rajendra Mourya and others (supra), which appiies with full force to the facts of this,case. The insurance company is, thus, liabie to pay the amount of compensation. !n view of the fact that the cheque for payment of premium issued by the insured was dishonoured, the right to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle ought to have been granted to the insurance company. Accordingly, it is ordered that the insurance company shali deposit, if not aiready deposited, the amount of compensation awarded within a period of thirty days from today. The insurance company may initiate execution proceedings to recover the amount of compensation so deposited by it from the owner of the offending vehicle. (8) Accordingiy, ali the four appeais are disposed of. (9) A copy of this order be piaced on record of the connected appeals afid another copy be sent to the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari along with the records of all the four claim cases. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^-g?^^=> :^'