JUDGMENT : B. MURALIDHARA PAI, J. 1. The claimant in MVC No. 2290/2011, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khanapur, has filed this appeal, being aggrieved by the dismissal of his claim petition by the impugned judgment dated 25.02.2014. 2. The claimant filed MVC No. 2290/2011 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, Truck No. KA-17-1666, for the loss sustained due to damage caused to his Mahindra Bolero pick-up goods vehicle, bearing Registration No. KA-22-A-8358, in a road traffic accident that occurred on 18.04.2011. 3. After contest, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, though holding that the accident occurred due to actionable negligence of the driver of the offending truck. The Tribunal rejected the claim on the ground that the claimant had already received compensation for the damage from his own insurer and could not claim again from the respondents. The Tribunal also held that the claimant had not produced sufficient evidence to establish the actual loss suffered. 4. In this appeal, the claimant challenges the findings of the Tribunal, contending that he is entitled to recover the balance amount of actual loss since his own insurer reimbursed only Rs. 45,050/-, whereas he incurred expenses of Rs. 1,73,465/- towards vehicle repair. He further contends that he suffered pecuniary loss due to his vehicle being off the road and that PW- 2’s testimony proving loss of Rs. 73,372/- for 52 days was wrongly ignored. He also disputes the Tribunal’s finding regarding absence of valid insurance coverage for the offending vehicle. 5. During arguments, learned counsel for the claimant relied on the following Judgments : I. Sri Hemanth Raju v. Sri Punitha H.J. (NC:2023:KHC:46025) II. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lakshmama ( AIR 2012 SC 2817 ) III. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur ( (1998) 1 SCC 371 ) and he prayed for allowing the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer relied on: I. Deddappa v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. (MANU/SC/4587/2007) II. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Seema Malhotra (MANU/SC/0112/2001) and submitted that the policy covering the offending truck was cancelled owing to dishonor of the cheque issued towards premium and therefore was void ab initio. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer relied on: I. Deddappa v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. (MANU/SC/4587/2007) II. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Seema Malhotra (MANU/SC/0112/2001) and submitted that the policy covering the offending truck was cancelled owing to dishonor of the cheque issued towards premium and therefore was void ab initio. He further relied on the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Manner of Receipt of Premium) Regulations, 2002, submitting that the insurer’s risk commences only upon receipt of premium. 7. It is undisputed that the vehicles Mahindra Bolero (KA-22- 8358) and Truck (KA-17-1666) were involved in the accident on 18.04.2011 near Mugalihal Village. The Tribunal held that the accident in question occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of truck driver. Neither the owner nor insurer of the truck has challenged the said finding. 8. The claimant seeks compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards repair cost and loss of income. He asserts that he spent more than Rs. 1,66,000/- for repairs and suffered income loss of Rs. 73,372/- due to the vehicle remaining off the road. The respondents disputed these contentions, requiring the claimant to establish them with evidence. 9. The claimant examined himself as PW-1, marked documents, and examined two more witnesses. His primary reliance is on Ex.P9, his claim application to his own insurer and attached documents showing that he sought Rs. 1,73,435/- based on estimated repair costs. The documents indicate that the claim was based on estimates and quotations, not on actual expenditure. 10. Ex.P9 also contains the insurer’s final assessment fixing repair cost at Rs. 45,050/-. The assessment shows: 11. The above referred final assessment shows that the total cost of the repairs was Rs. 57,960/- as under: Thus, it becomes clear that the claimant has incurred Rs. 12,910/- over and above the reimbursement of Rs. 45,050/-. 12. The claimant has sought an additional sum of Rs. 73,372/- towards loss of income on the ground that his vehicle remained off the road for a period of 52 days during the course of repairs. According to the claimant, he had entered into a contract with M/s Hutson Agro Product Limited, Belagavi, for providing a vehicle for transporting milk from various villages of Khanapur Taluk, and he was using the vehicle involved in the accident for that purpose. It is his specific case that he was receiving Rs. According to the claimant, he had entered into a contract with M/s Hutson Agro Product Limited, Belagavi, for providing a vehicle for transporting milk from various villages of Khanapur Taluk, and he was using the vehicle involved in the accident for that purpose. It is his specific case that he was receiving Rs. 42,000/- per month under the said contract and that, after deducting expenses such as the driver’s salary, vehicle maintenance, and fuel charges, he was earning a net income of Rs. 25,000/- per month. 13. The evidence adduced through PW-2 indicates that the claimant continued to receive payments from M/s Hutson Agro Products Limited, Belagavi for the period from 16.04.2011 to 15.06.2011 under the subsisting contract. The claimant contends that, in order to honour his contractual obligations and ensure continuous milk collection from the villages, he had arranged an alternative vehicle during this period, and therefore the payments were released to him even when his own vehicle was not available. 14. There is no serious dispute with regard to the correctness of the claimant’s above contention. However, the claimant has not produced any material before the Tribunal to establish the actual amount spent by him for arranging the alternative vehicle or the net loss suffered during the relevant period. Even if the claimant’s case is accepted, he would still be required to incur expenditure towards the driver’s wages, vehicle maintenance, and fuel charges to comply with the contract. Therefore, the expenditure, if any, incurred by the claimant for arranging an alternative vehicle would fall within the scope of incidental expenses. In the absence of evidence to establish actual financial loss, it is held that the claimant has not made out a valid ground to seek compensation under the head of loss of income for the relevant period. 15. Learned Counsel for the Insurer has strenuously contended that the claimant is not entitled to seek any amount towards repair costs, as he has already received Rs. 45,050/- from his own insurer in full and final settlement without raising any objection. However, in Sri Hemanth Raju (supra), relying on R.P. Zuber v. Basavarjappa & Another ( 2016 ACJ 2307 ), this Court has held that when the total loss is not reimbursed by the own insurer, the claimant is entitled to seek the balance from the insurer of the offending vehicle. However, in Sri Hemanth Raju (supra), relying on R.P. Zuber v. Basavarjappa & Another ( 2016 ACJ 2307 ), this Court has held that when the total loss is not reimbursed by the own insurer, the claimant is entitled to seek the balance from the insurer of the offending vehicle. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the insurer’s contention disputing the claimant’s right to recover the balance repair cost not reimbursed by his own insurer. 16. Learned Counsel for the Insurer further contends that the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation since the policy covering the offending vehicle had been cancelled prior to the date of the accident on account of dishonour of the cheque issued by the owner towards payment of premium. He submits that the insurer’s liability commences only upon actual receipt of premium. 17. It is true that Regulation 4 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Manner of Receipt of Premium) Regulations, 2002, which came into force on 16.10.2002, stipulates that the insurer’s risk commences only after receipt of premium. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deddappa and Seema Malhotra (supra) has held that when a cheque issued towards the first premium is dishonoured, the insurer is not bound to perform its part of the contract. 18. In the present case, the insurer has led evidence before the Tribunal to show that the cheque dated 22.12.2010 issued by the owner of the offending vehicle towards premium was returned unpaid due to insufficient funds. The insurer claims that, in consequence, the policy covering the period 23.12.2010 to 22.12.2011 was cancelled. 19. It is well settled that non-payment of premium can render an insurance policy void ab initio, meaning that no risk is assumed by the insurer. In Yallamma & Others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2008) 7 SCC 526 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that compliance with Section 64VB of the Insurance Act is a mandatory condition for fastening liability on the insurer; however, the insurer’s own conduct may, in certain situations, estop it from denying liability on technical grounds. Further, in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Arti Devi & Others (2025 SCC 558), it was held that where premium- related conditions are later fulfilled, the insurer may still be liable despite initial non-receipt. 20. Further, in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Arti Devi & Others (2025 SCC 558), it was held that where premium- related conditions are later fulfilled, the insurer may still be liable despite initial non-receipt. 20. In the present case, though the insurer has established that the cheque issued towards premium was dishonoured, it has failed to produce reliable evidence before the Tribunal proving that the policy was validly cancelled prior to the filing of the claim petition. The documents at Exs. R-5 and R-6, purportedly intimating cancellation to the insured and to the Transport Authority, have not been proved to have been served on either. Moreover, these intimations bear the date 23.12.2010, whereas the cheque was dishonoured only on 29.12.2010. It is also significant that the insurer has not offered a categorical statement denying the revival of the policy thereafter, up to the date of the accident. In the circumstances, this Court holds that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation determined herein, subject to its right to recover the same from the insured, if any. 21. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part ii) The judgment and award dated 25.02.2014 passed in MVC No.2290/2011 by the learned MACT, Khanapur, is set aside iii) The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is allowed, and the claimant is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 12,910/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Nine Hundred Ten) Only, together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. iv) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation determined by the Court. v) Respondent No.2 shall deposit the compensation amount before the Tribunal within two months from today, subject to its right to recover the said amount from the insured, if so advised. vi) The claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount upon such deposit. vii) Draw the award accordingly.