JUDGMENT : SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J. M.A.C.A. Nos. 3364, 3507 & 3512 OF 2017 These appeals are filed by the 3rd respondent/insurer, in OP(MV) nos. 1402, 1403 and 1404 of 2010, on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikara, primarily challenging their liability to pay the award amounts in M.A.C.A. Nos. 3507 and 3512 of 2017, for the injuries sustained in the accident, as well as in M.A.C.A. No. 3364 of 2017, for the death that occurred in the accident. The respondents herein were the claimants and the first and second respondents in the original petitions. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: On 20.04.2010, at about 5.45 p.m., while the deceased in O.P.(MV) 1403/2010, was riding a goods autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL- 30/5785 along with the petitioners in O.P.(MV) Nos. 1402/2010 & 1404/2010, a mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-03-H-418, driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the autorickshaw and as a result, the deceased and the petitioners sustained serious injuries, and the deceased succumbed to his injuries. The claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, in O.P.(MV) No. 1403 of 2010, approached the tribunal, claiming a total compensation of ?25,91,600/-. The claimants in O.P.(MV) Nos. 1402/2010 and 1404/2010 claimed compensation of ?69,000/- and ?65,000/- respectively for the injuries sustained in the accident. 3. The first and second respondents, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, filed a common written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. The third respondent - insurer filed a written statement contending that there was no valid insurance policy for the vehicle at the relevant time of the accident. They also disputed the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. Before the tribunal, Pws. 1 and 2 and Rws.1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A20 and Exts.B1 to B6 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the second respondent and awarded a sum of ?14,750/-, ?22,13,000/- & ?15,250/- in O.P.(MV) Nos. 1402, 1403 & 1404 of 2010 respectively, as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs. 1402, 1403 & 1404 of 2010 respectively, as compensation under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs. Challenging the liability to pay the compensation awarded, the 3 rd respondent - insurance company has come up with these appeals. 4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant/insurance company and the learned counsel for the claimants/respondents. 5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that there was no valid insurance policy covering the offending vehicle at the relevant time of the accident, which occurred on 20.04.2010. Though Ext.B1 policy was issued for the period from 15.06.2009 to 14.06.2010, the premium was remitted by the first respondent–insured through Ext.B2 cheque dated 08.05.2009 for an amount of ?8,864/- and the said cheque was dishonoured on 14.07.2009. Though intimation was served to the first respondent insured on the same day, as there was no response, a further intimation was sent on 16.12.2009, which was duly served on 17.12.2009. Despite receipt of the notice, the insured failed to remit the premium amount. Consequently, the policy was cancelled and there was no subsisting contract of insurance as on the date of the accident. 6. The learned standing counsel relied on Exts. B1 to B6 in support of the said contention. It was further submitted that due intimation regarding the cancellation of the policy was also given to the Regional Transport Authority, Chengannur, as per Ext. B6, and therefore, the insurance company will not be liable for any risk arising under the afore-said documents. Though these contentions were raised before the tribunal, the tribunal had not appreciated the facts properly and found that the insurance company was liable to pay the amount. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/insured, on the other hand, contended that a specific plea was taken in the written statement that the first respondent had not issued any cheque and that the premium amount was paid in cash. Since the premium was paid in cash, the policy was duly issued and there was a valid insurance coverage as on the date of the accident. Having a valid insurance policy, the insurance company is liable to pay the award passed by the tribunal. The learned counsel for the first respondent further submitted that even as per the evidence of RW2, the Manager of the Co-operation Bank, Chengannur, Ext. Having a valid insurance policy, the insurance company is liable to pay the award passed by the tribunal. The learned counsel for the first respondent further submitted that even as per the evidence of RW2, the Manager of the Co-operation Bank, Chengannur, Ext. B2 cheque was not issued by the insured from his account. On the contrary, the account relating to the said cheque stood in the name of one Santhosh Kumar K.J., Mini Nivas, Mampra P.O., Kodukulanji. The learned counsel for the first respondent further submitted that he had no relation with the holder of the afore-said cheque and, therefore, the insurance company cannot contend that the cheque allegedly issued by the first respondent was dishonoured. 8. I have considered the rival contentions raised by both sides. 9. The question that arises for consideration in this case is whether Ext.B2 cheque was issued by the first respondent towards payment of the premium amount, or whether the premium was paid in cash, and whether the first respondent has any liability regarding the bouncing of Ext.B2 cheque. 10. As per Ext.B1 policy, the total premium amount was 8,864/-. Ext.B1 policy does not reflect the details of any cheque issued by the first respondent. In Ext.B7 policy copy produced by the respondent–insurer, there is a specific provision to indicate the mode of payment, whether by demand draft, cheque, or otherwise. However, in the Ext. B7 policy copy issued in respect of the vehicle belonging to the first respondent, no such particulars were filled in by the insurance company at the time of issuance of the policy. Though the total premium amount is shown as ?8,864/-, Ext. B7 policy does not reveal any entry indicating the mode of payment of premium amount by the first respondent. In the written statement filed by the insurer before the tribunal, in paragraph 10, it was their specific case that the insured had issued Cheque No. 094287 dated 28.05.2009 drawn on the Co-operation Bank, Chengannur. However, they did not have a case that the cheque for the insured was issued by Santhosh Kumar.K.J. In order to prove the contentions of the insurer regarding the bouncing of the cheque and other issues, RW2, the Manager of the Corporation Bank, Chengannur, was examined. However, they did not have a case that the cheque for the insured was issued by Santhosh Kumar.K.J. In order to prove the contentions of the insurer regarding the bouncing of the cheque and other issues, RW2, the Manager of the Corporation Bank, Chengannur, was examined. During examination, RW2 had testified that the holder of the account number mentioned in the afore-said cheque is one Santhosh Kumar K.J., Mini Nivas, Mampra P.O., Kodukulanji. 11. The case set up by the insurer that Ext. B2 cheque was issued by the first respondent stands disproved by the evidence of RW2. Even in the written statement, the insurance company had no case that the cheque allegedly issued by the first respondent belonged to one Santhosh Kumar M.J. Absolutely no evidence has been adduced to prove that Ext. B2 cheque was issued by or at the instance of, the first respondent. 12. Though the first respondent submits that he had paid the premium by cash, no receipt has been produced to prove the same. Since policy was issued to the first respondent, it must be presumed that it was issued upon receipt of the premium amount from the insured. It is to be noted that there is no entry in Exts. B1 and B7 policy copies indicating that the premium was paid by cheque issued by the first respondent or by cash. Though the insurance company contended that immediately upon dishonour of the cheque, Exts.B5 and B6 notices were issued to the insured and to the Regional Transport Authority, Chengannur, however, these documents do not bear any postal receipts or acknowledgment details. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company further submitted that, as the first respondent did not respond to the notices, a registered letter was issued on 16.12.2009 to the first respondent and the intimation was duly served. The said intimation was issued prior to the dishonour of the cheque. 13. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company relied on the judgment of this Court in Prasanna.B. V. Kabeer P.K. and Another [ 2018 (5) KHC 454 ] and submitted that when an intimation about cancellation of insurance policy is sent by registered post, the burden is on the addressee to rebut the presumption by conclusive evidence that he did not receive the letter. However, in the postal cover it is stated as ‘door locked’ and ‘intimation was served’. However, in the postal cover it is stated as ‘door locked’ and ‘intimation was served’. Though the Post Master, RW3 was examined to prove Ext. B4, a specific question was put i.e; Hence, it has to be presumed that no proper intimation was given either to the first respondent regarding the notice issued by the insurance company. 14. Admittedly a policy was issued to the first respondent by the insurer. The insurance company, however, failed to prove that a cheque was issued by the first respondent towards the premium amount, and that cheque got bounced and that proper intimation regarding the dishonour of the cheque was given to the first respondent. Exts.B7 policy was issued in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident. Accordingly, the insurance company cannot be exonerated from the liability and I find that the insurer is liable to pay the award amount. However, no challenge has been raised by the insurance company regarding the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants, and I find no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the insurance company are dismissed.