Judgment :- ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. This first appeal is preferred against the order passed on an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, whereby it exonerated the Insurance Company. 2. The facts giving rise to the claim are as follows – The claimant is an agriculturist. He had brought to Kalamna the agricultural produce for being sold there. It was brought in a Metador bearing No.MH-31/AP-7922 from his village. After selling the said Soyabeen, the claimant as well as others were going back home sitting in the same Metador, to their village. On way, the said Metador met with an accident in which the claimant suffered injuries. Due to the said injuries, it is alleged that the claimant has suffered a permanent disability. He has, therefore, filed an application claiming compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Therein, he also filed an application under Section 140 of the M.V.Act. 3. The said application under Section 140 of the M.V.Act was opposed by the Insurance Company on the ground that the cheque issued by the owner of the vehicle towards the premium to be paid for insuring the vehicle was dishonoured and an intimation was given to the owner as well as to the R.T.O. office of such cancellation of the policy. The other ground is that the claimant was not a third party and a gratuitous passenger not covered by the policy of insurance. 4. The learned judge of the Tribunal found that since cheque issued by the owner of the vehicle was dishonoured and the policy of insurance was cancelled by the insurance company after intimation to the owner, the insurance company was not liable. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been preferred. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. 6. The Insurance Company does not dispute that the owner of the vehicle had taken out the policy for the vehicle in question w.e.f. 28/11/2003 to 27/11/2004. The defence of the Insurance Company is threefold. 1) that the policy of insurance has been cancelled due to dishonour of the cheque, (2) the claimant since travelling in the vehicle was not third party ,and (3) the claimant was travelling in a goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger and was, therefore, not covered. 7. The defence of the Insurance Company is threefold. 1) that the policy of insurance has been cancelled due to dishonour of the cheque, (2) the claimant since travelling in the vehicle was not third party ,and (3) the claimant was travelling in a goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger and was, therefore, not covered. 7. The Insurance Company specifically contends that the cheque issued towards the payment of premium was dishonoured and as soon as the said cheque was dishonoured an intimation was given to the owner by registered post as well as to the Regional Transport Officer. It is contended that said letter was sent on 8/12/2003. Insurance Company has placed on record the copy of the letter and the postal acknowledgment. The postal acknowledgment shows that the owner had received the letter on 10/12/2003 intimating that the policy stands cancelled. Shri Sadavarte, the learned counsel for the claimant/appellant, submits that once Insurance Company issues a policy, it cannot escape the liability even if a cheque may be dishonoured subsequently. He submits that as far as third party is concerned, the dishonour of cheque will not come in the way and vehicle should be deemed to be covered by the insurance once policy is issued and the term of the policy has not expired. He also contends that if the cheque is dishonoured, the Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the amount, which it is required to pay, from the owner but the Insurance Company is in any case bound to indemnify the third party. He relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court, reported in AIR 2006 Kerala 20 (The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. A.B.Sivankuty and ors.). The High Court observes as follows – 15. Thus by no means can an insurer who has issued a policy of insurance for a motor vehicle receiving cheque towards payment of premium be allowed to disown liability to third party. Their remedies have to be worked out against the insured. 20. Neither from the three member Bench decision of the Apex Court in Inderjit Kaur’s case AIR 1996 SC 588 nor from the provisions of sections 147(5) and 149(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 do we get any support to hold the view that the liability to pay compensation for injuries sustained to third parties ceases to exist after cancellation of the policy. The situation is not akin to that of an owner of a vehicle not having taken any insurance at all for the vehicle as on the date of the accident, as is observed by the Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Raghu (2001)3 Ker LT 515 : (2001)3 Ker LT 515 does not lay down the correct law. The position is that the liability of the Insurance Company in damages for third party risks continues for the entire period covered by the policy in spite of the cheque issued toward payment of premium was dishonoured and consequently policy was cancelled by the Insurance Company. The remedy of the Insurance Company lies against the “insured” to have the amount paid by them by way of compensation for third party risks to be got reimbursed. Shri Kukdey, the learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company, on the other hand, submits that if no premium is paid, the Insurance Company is not bound to indemnify. He submits that issuance of policy by Insurance Company is, in fact, a contract of insurance and according to him, any contract without consideration is void. He submits that once a cheque is dishonoured, it follows that no consideration is paid by the insured to the insurer and if no consideration is paid, apparently, the contract becomes void. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the cheque was dishonoured. The learned Judge of the Tribunal had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2001 ACJ 638 (National Insurance Co.Ltd. ..vs.. Seema Malhotra and others). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court make following observations. 17. In a contract of insurance when an insured gives a cheque towards payment of premium or part of the premium, such a contract consists of reciprocal promise., The drawer of the cheque promises the insurer that the cheque, on presentation, would yield the amount in cash. It cannot be forgotten that a cheque is a Bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker. A Bill of exchange is an instrument in writing containing an unconditional order directing a certain person to pay a certain sum of money to a certain person. It involves a promise that such money would be paid. 18. It cannot be forgotten that a cheque is a Bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker. A Bill of exchange is an instrument in writing containing an unconditional order directing a certain person to pay a certain sum of money to a certain person. It involves a promise that such money would be paid. 18. Thus, when the insured fails to pay the premium promised, or when the cheque issued by him towards the premium is returned dishonoured by the bank concerned, the insurer need not perform his part of the promise. The corollary is that the insured cannot claim performance from the insurer in such a situation. 19. Under Section 25 of the Contract Act an agreement made without consideration is void. Section 65 of the Contract Act says that when a contract becomes void any person who has received any advantage under such contract is bound to restore it to the person from whom he received it. So, even if the insurer has disbursed the amount covered by the policy to the insured before the cheque was returned dishonoured, insurer is entitled to get the money back. It is very clear from the decision of the Supreme Court that an Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured if the cheque issued by the insured is dishonoured. Their Lordships have held that the cheque involves a promise to pay money and if the insured fails to pay the money, the Insurance Company need not perform its part of his contract. I think, this is the ratio that has been laid down by the Supreme Court. The facts may be somewhat different but court is required to look into the ratio laid down by the superior court and not discard any case on facts. It is very difficult to find the cases which are identical on facts. It is, therefore, necessary always to find out what is the ratio. What is binding on the inferior court is the ratio as laid down by the superior courts. The Kerla High Court seems to have considered this decision in their judgment but tried to distinguish it. I find that the ratio as laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision of Seema Malhotra (supra) needs to be looked into and that is always binding on the High Court. The Kerla High Court seems to have considered this decision in their judgment but tried to distinguish it. I find that the ratio as laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision of Seema Malhotra (supra) needs to be looked into and that is always binding on the High Court. The learned Judge of the trial court has rightly relied on this decision. If the ratio of this decision is followed in no case the liability could be fixed on the insurance company. 8. Further more, it is not in dispute that the vehicle in which the claimant was travelling is a goods vehicle. The policy of insurance does not go to show that any person travelling in a goods vehicle is covered by the policy of insurance. Further it is not in dispute that the claimant was travelling as a gratuitous passenger and such a gratuitous passenger is also not covered and thirdly; the person actually travelling in the vehicle is not a third party and is, therefore, not covered by the policy of insurance. In any case, therefore, the claimant was not entitled to be reimbursed by the insurance company. There is, therefore, no substance in the appeal. The same is dismissed. No order as to costs.