Amol Rattan Singh, J. - (1.) The only issue in this appeal, filed by the owner and driver respectively, of the tractor involved in an accident in which one Rahul was unfortunately killed and one Kalsum had received serious injuries, is as to whether it is the appellants herein who are liable to pay the compensation to the claimants (who had filed separate claim petitions), or whether it is the insurance company (respondent No. 1) that had insured the offending vehicle , that would be first liable to pay such compensation.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmamma and others, 2012 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 834 , to submit that even if the policy was cancelled due to dishonouring of the cheque given towards payment of premium for the policy, after the accident took place, the insurer would still be liable to pay the claimants the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, but would be at liberty to recover the same in due course of law from the insured. Notice of motion. Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate, appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1, i.e. the Bharti AXA Genereal Insurance Company Ltd.
(3.) Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the Tribunal came to a positive finding that the cover note itself, bearing no. 30582003, was cancelled from the date of its inception, in view of the fact that the specific stand of the insurance company was that the cover note had simply been issued on the basis of a previous cover note bearing no. 012239, for an insurance policy valid from 21.03.2010 to 20.03.2011 and on verification by the company, the cover note bearing no. 30522003 had been found to be a fake one, i.e. it was actually issued after the accident, and was made subject to realization of the premium, vide the cheque issued in that regard, but with the cheque also having been dishonoured within 8 days of the accident, the insurance company had obviously no time to intimate cancellation of the policy before the accident. Hence, he contended that the judgment in Laxmammas' case (supra) would not be applicable, as in that case the cheque had been issued on 14.04.2004, with the accident having taken place on 11.05.2004, i.e. 27 days later, (though the cheque was subsequently dishonoured and the cancellation of the policy was thereafter intimated to the insured). He submitted that in the present case, the accident had taken place within 08 days of the date of the cheque with that date obviously also having been ante-dated, in view of the fact that the old policy actually expired on 20.03.2011. The accident having taken place on 23.03.2011, the Tribunal had obviously weighed the evidence and arrived at a conclusion that the whole process of getting an insurance cover note issued and a cheque having been issued and thereafter, an accident having taken place within 3 days of the expiry of the old policy, all pointed to the fact that the insurance company's' contention with regard to the cover note being ante-dated and therefore, fake was a true contention and as such, the insurance company had been held not liable to pay the compensation, with only the driver and owner of the vehicle held to be so liable. ;