JUDGMENT :- The insurer questions its liability to satisfy the claim of a third party on the ground that the offending lorry was not insured with the insurer and that the insurer, consequently, is not liable to the claim. The insurer also filed MA CMA MP No.2728 of 2012 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking to receive additional evidence. The petition for additional evidence as well as the appeal are resisted by the claimant. 2. Compensation at Rs.10,00,000/- was sought under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the mother of the deceased-B. Santosh Kumar alleging that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident when Tata Indigo Car bearing Registration No.AP9Y 342 hit the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling leading to the death of the deceased. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car owned by the second respondent herein. The Tribunal also held that the appellant was the insurer of the offending lorry. Compensation was awarded at Rs.3,14,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum. Assailing• the same, the insurer preferred the present appeal. It may be noticed that no cross appeal was preferred by the claimant. It would appear that the claimant was fairly satisfied with the amount of the compensation received by her. 3. The deceased was 25 years old at the time of his death. He was a Sales Consultant in M/s. Kun United Hyundai, Hyderabad. He was drawing salary at Rs.7,250/-, vide Ex.A6-salary certificate. On 11.9.2008 at about 9.30 a.m., while the deceased was proceeding from Thukkuguda to Hyderabad on his motorcycle bearing Registration No. AP 10AN 5532, the offending Tata Indigo Car of the second respondent bearing Registration No. AP 9Y 342 dashed the motorcycle from the opposite direction near HUDA School, Shaheen Nagar, Hyderabad. The accident was alleged to be due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car. The deceased was shifted to KIMS Hospital, where he died on 15.9.2008 on account of the injury sustained by him. The mother of the claimant, who is the first respondent, consequently, claimed compensation at Rs.10,00,000/-. PW2 was an eye-witness for the accident. The deceased was shifted to KIMS Hospital, where he died on 15.9.2008 on account of the injury sustained by him. The mother of the claimant, who is the first respondent, consequently, claimed compensation at Rs.10,00,000/-. PW2 was an eye-witness for the accident. According to PW2, the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car. Ex. A1 is the certified copy of the First Information Report (FIR). The FIR itself was lodged by a third party by name MK Krishna Reddy. The FIR under Ex.A1 as well as the evidence of PW2 reveal that the offending car was driven in a rash and negligent manner, and that it not only hit the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling but also hit another motorcycle bearing Registration No. AP 11AC 5958. Ex.A5 certified copy of the charge-sheet as well as Ex. A1 certified copy of the FIR show that the case was registered against the driver of the car under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) showing that the driver of the car hit more than one motorcycle. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the inquest report. The mediators opined that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car. 4. As rightly submitted by Smt. A. Chaya Devi, learned Counsel for the claimant, there is overwhelming evidence to show that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car. There cannot be any question regarding the liability of the second respondent-owner of the offending car to compensate the death of the deceased. 5. Be it noted that the appellant-insurer is not disputing the mode and manner of the accident and as to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending car. It is also not questioning the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the claimant. The contention of the insurer is that there was no insurance for the vehicle at the time of the accident and that the insurer, therefore, is not liable jointly and severally with the owner of the offending car to compensate the claim. 6. It is also not questioning the quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the claimant. The contention of the insurer is that there was no insurance for the vehicle at the time of the accident and that the insurer, therefore, is not liable jointly and severally with the owner of the offending car to compensate the claim. 6. Although the claimant contended that the deceased was earning Rs.7,250/- per month and produced Ex.A6-salary certificate, on the ground that the salary certificate had not been proved, the Tribunal determined the income of the deceased notionally Rs.3,000/- per month and applied multiplier 13' taking the age of claimant who is the mother of the deceased as 47 years. The Tribunal also deducted 50% of the notional income of the deceased towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, as the deceased was a bachelor at the time of his death. The Tribunal recorded the calculation by following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC) = 2009 ACJ 1298 . Apart from the loss of dependency at Rs.2,34,000/-, the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards loss of estate, Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards funeral expenses and Rs.60,000/- as compensation towards medical expenses. It, however, awarded interest at 7.5% per annum whereas Sarla Verma considered it appropriate to award interest at 6% per annum only. 7. It is the case of the insurer that when the second respondent issued a cheque in its favour towards premium, cover note was issued and that the cheque, however, stood bounced, so much so, the insurance policy automatically stood cancelled. Admittedly, this claim was not brought before the Tribunal. The insurer, consequently, filed MA CMA MP No.2728 of 2012 seeking permission of this Court to receive additional evidence in the shape of documents. The insurer seeks to bring on record the cheque issued by the second respondent towards premium, the memo issued by the bank reporting that the cheque was dishonoured and the letter of the insurer to the second respondent informing about cancellation of the policy. The learned Counsel for the claimant opposed the petition on a two-fold ground. She submitted that the insurer did not take the defence before the Tribunal that the policy stood cancelled and that in the absence of pleading, the insurer cannot let in evidence. The learned Counsel for the claimant opposed the petition on a two-fold ground. She submitted that the insurer did not take the defence before the Tribunal that the policy stood cancelled and that in the absence of pleading, the insurer cannot let in evidence. She reiterated the legal position that any amount of evidence without pleading is of no value. The second ground of attack is that the evidence in question was available with the insurer by the time the case came up for trial. When the insurer did not let in evidence, the insurer would not be entitled to do so, at this stage, as the insurer was not diligent at the time of the trial of the case. 8. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the insurer, any amount of evidence without pleading is of no value. The insurer did not seek for amendment of written statement or seek to file additional written statement. It merely sought for receipt of additional evidence. It, therefore, is necessary to examine whether the insurer has taken the plea relevant to the documents. In its written statement, the insurer put the claimant to strict proof that the offending vehicle was covered with valid policy. I consider that the plea is so vast and wide to engulf the defence that there was no policy. Certainly, the insurer did not plea that the second respondent issued a cheque as premium for the policy, that such a cheque stood bounced, that the insurer informed the second respondent that the policy has not come into force and that the vehicle, consequently, was not insured with the insurer. However, the claimant was put to strict proof to show that the vehicle was validly insured. I, therefore, conclude that the insurer has taken the plea that the offending vehicle was not insured with it. The resistance of the learned Counsel for the claimant to the plea of additional evidence on the ground that there was no corresponding pleading thus is found to be incorrect and is accordingly rejected. 9. The second stand of the learned Counsel for the claimant is that the three documents the insurer now seeks to bring on record were a available with the insurer and when the insurer did not choose to bring them on record at the time of the trial, he is not entitled to do so at this stage. 9. The second stand of the learned Counsel for the claimant is that the three documents the insurer now seeks to bring on record were a available with the insurer and when the insurer did not choose to bring them on record at the time of the trial, he is not entitled to do so at this stage. I do not find any reasonable explanation why the insurer did not choose to file these documents before the Tribunal. At the same time, these documents go to the very root of the case regarding the liability of the insurer. The interests of justice, therefore, warrant to receive the additional documents. At the same time, the insurer cannot take the claimant for a ride. To strike a balance between the insurer and the claimant, I consider that it would be appropriate to receive additional documents subject to the condition that in case the insurer ultimately is able to establish its case, the insurer should be directed to pay the compensation and later recover the same from the second respondent-owner of the offending vehicle. With this condition, CMA MP No.2728 of 2012 is allowed. Additional documents are received. The original cheque bearing No.039406 dated 27.9.2007 drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd., for Rs.11,111/-, the bank endorsement in the shape of Memo dated 13.10.2007 and the undated letter from the insurer shall stand exhibited as Exs. B 1 to B3. 10. It may be recapitulated that it is found that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car and that the claimant is entitled to compensation at Rs.3,14,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum. The question is whether the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurer (the second respondent and the appellant) are jointly and severally liable to answer the claim or whether the second respondent alone is liable. 11. Ex. B 1 is the cheque issued by the second respondent towards premium. Ex.B2 shows that the cheque stood bounced when presented to the bank. Ex.B3 is the letter addressed to the second respondent informing that the policy stood cancelled right from the inspection. Thus, the insurer contended that the policy became nonest and it stood cancelled from the date of inspection. The cheque was issued on 27.9.2007. The cheque -stood bounced on 13.10.2007. Ex.B3 is the letter addressed to the second respondent informing that the policy stood cancelled right from the inspection. Thus, the insurer contended that the policy became nonest and it stood cancelled from the date of inspection. The cheque was issued on 27.9.2007. The cheque -stood bounced on 13.10.2007. The letter informing the second respondent about the cancellation of the policy from inspection does not show on what date such a letter was issued. The insurer did not produce any evidence showing that the second respondent received the notice of cancellation of the policy. 12. I may now examine the question of law on this issue of bounced cheque leading to the cancellation of the policy and its effect. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Seema Malhotra, 2001 (2) ALD 68 (SC) = 2001 ACJ 638, a cover note was issued when the insured issued a cheque towards premium. The cheque subsequently stood dishonoured. The insurer cancelled the policy with immediate effect. However, even before the cancellation of the policy, the vehicle was involved in an accident. The Supreme Court held that the policy was never in force, as the cheque issued by the insured was a promise to pay money and that when the promise had not been fulfilled, the insurer need not perform its part of the promise. The Supreme Court also considered that the policy itself was an agreement and when the insured did not pay the premium, such a policy would become an agreement without consideration and consequently void. Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Counsel for the insured-appellant contended that in the present case, the insurer did not keep quiet but informed the second respondent through the letter Ex.B3 that the policy was cancelled right from the beginning and that in any event, the policy was deemed to be never in force, so much so, the insurer is not liable to the claim. 13. In Daddappa v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2008 ACJ 581 , a cheque issued towards premium was dishonoured. The insurer cancelled the policy and informed the same not only to the insurer but the R.T.O. as well. The accident occurred long after the communication of the cancellation of the policy. The Supreme Court held that the insurer was not liable. Ltd., 2008 ACJ 581 , a cheque issued towards premium was dishonoured. The insurer cancelled the policy and informed the same not only to the insurer but the R.T.O. as well. The accident occurred long after the communication of the cancellation of the policy. The Supreme Court held that the insurer was not liable. The Court, however, invoked Article 142 of the Indian Constitution keeping the economic condition of the claimants into consideration and directed the insurer to pay and recover. In Munagala Srinivasa Rao v. Rajendra Singh, 2009 (4) ALD 711 = 2010 ACJ 1107 , the premium paid through a cheque could not be realized, as the cheque was dishonoured. The insurer cancelled the policy prior to the date of the accident and sent intimation through a letter to the insured. This Court held that the insurer was not liable, as the policy was cancelled prior to the incident. 14. In National Insurance Co. Ltd., Ongole v. Oburi (Oguri) Umamaheswara Rao, 2011 (4) ALD 254 , when a cheque paid towards premium of the policy was dishonoured, the insurer cancelled the policy. The accident occurred about 10 months after the cancellation of the cover note. That the insured did not receive the note of cancellation of the policy on the ground of dishonour of the cheque was held to be no ground to fasten the insurer with liability, when the insurer established that notice of the cancellation was sent to the insured. In that case, notice was sent to the insured cancelling the policy but the notice was returned with an endorsement that there was no such addressee. This Court held that it was deemed to be valid service. Similar view was taken in Munagala Srinivas Rao's case (supra) also. On the strength of these decisions, it is contended by the insurer that the policy was repudiated by the insurer and that the insurer, consequently, is not liable to the claim, when the accident was subsequent to the repudiation of the policy. 15. The insurer established that the cheque issued towards premium stood bounced. It is natural for the insurer to cancel the policy, when the premium paid through cheque has not been realized. When did the insurer cancelled the policy? This aspect has not been answered by the insurer in this case. Ex.B3 is a letter repudiating the policy from the date of the policy. It is natural for the insurer to cancel the policy, when the premium paid through cheque has not been realized. When did the insurer cancelled the policy? This aspect has not been answered by the insurer in this case. Ex.B3 is a letter repudiating the policy from the date of the policy. Let alone establishing that the copy of the Ex.B3 was received by the second respondent, the insurer did not even show that Ex.B3 was sent to the second respondent by producing postal receipt or postal acknowledgement. More curious, Ex.B3 does not contain any date. It is not even clear whether the policy was repudiated prior to the accident or subsequent to the accident. Where the insurer failed to satisfy that the second respondent was informed about the cancellation of the policy and that such information was prior to the date of the accident, I consider that the insurer cannot escape liability merely because the cheque bounced. The second respondent needs to be informed that the cheque issued by him stood bounced, so much so, he would have an opportunity to mend by issuing a fresh cheque or paying the premium through cash to keep the policy alive. The insurer cannot simply consider that the policy stood cancelled and refuse to honour the claim. I venture to repeat that the insurer failed to show that Ex.B3 repudiation letter was communicated to the second respondent let alone establishing that the second respondent received the same. 16. In United Insurance Company Limited v. Laxmamma, 2012 (4) ALD 165 (SC), CA No.3589 of 2012, it was observed that the policy/cover note issued by the insured subsists unless the policy is cancelled by the insurer and that the intimation of such cancellation had been received by the insured before the accident. As already pointed out, there is no evidence from the insurer that the cancellation letter of the policy through Ex.B3 was sent to the second respondent and that the second respondent received the same. In the absence of proof regarding the communication of the cancellation of the policy by the insurer to the second respondent, so far as the claimant who is the third party to the policy is concerned, the policy holds good. In the absence of proof regarding the communication of the cancellation of the policy by the insurer to the second respondent, so far as the claimant who is the third party to the policy is concerned, the policy holds good. Thus, the insurer is not entitled to seek for exemption from liability where it failed to show that the cancellation of the policy was informed to the second respondent. The appeal, consequently, shall fail. Where the appellant failed to show that the repudiation of the policy was communicated to the second respondent, the policy holds good. The insurer, consequently, is jointly and severally liable with the second respondent to honour the claim. 17. The appeal, therefore, is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. The award of the Tribunal is maintained in toto. There shall, however, be no order as to costs in the appeal.