LSP 1 901 fa 2351.07.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION First Appeal No. 2351 of 2007 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. … Appellant V/s. Shri Tulturam Larkhu Ram Jaiswal and others … Respondents. Mr. Amol Gatne Advocate for the appellant. None for the Respondents. CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J DATE : 1st September 2026. P.C. : 1. Heard learned Advocate Shri Gatne for the Appellant. 2. The only issue advanced by Mr. Gatne is the accident took place on 27th December 2000 whereas intimation was given to the insured/owner of the vehicle and the RTO on 15th November 2000 that cheque issued towards the premium was dishonoured and according to him when the accident took place, contract of insurance has not come into existence. He tried his level best to convince me on two aspects: (i) The date of accident is after the communication and (ii) the observation of the Tribunal that the theory of cancellation is not proved is factually incorrect. 3. He invited my attention to the following documents: LATA SUNIL PANJWANI Digitally signed by LATA SUNIL PANJWANI Date: 2026.09.03 13:16:43 +0530 LSP 2 901 fa 2351.07.doc (i) List of documents containing the intimation given to RTO and to the insured. (ii) Policy cancellation memo (3) Cheque along with the return memo. 4. The pursis given on 24th April 2007 thereby closing the evidence. According to him the Tribunal has not considered these documents and have come to erroneous conclusion. According to him if these documents are considered certainly they cannot be saddled with the compensation. 5. It is true the Tribunal has referred two judgments. I had no occasion to read them but from the facts narrated before me it is clear that date of accident is subsequent to date of intimation about cancellation. On this count the Appellant may succeed, however, on the aspect of proof of these documents, the Appellant cannot succeed. It is true rigid proof of evidence is not applicable in an enquiry under Motor Vehicles Act. There has to be some foundation so to say putting case to the claimant though he is not the proper person or examining some representative though not signatory to that correspondence. Such foundation is not there, so I am afraid, I can accept the contention of learned Advocate Shri Gatne. In the set of facts, it can only be said that the Appellant can recover the amount from the insured. 6. It is true that the Respondents have not appeared, however, considering the limited issue involved I am deciding the appeal on LSP 3 901 fa 2351.07.doc hearing learned Advocate for the Appellant. The owner has also not contested the proceedings before the Tribunal. Hence, the following order: ORDER (i) The Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The order dated 4th June 2007 passed by MACT, Thane in Case bearing M.A.C.P. No.1008/2001 is modified to the extent the Appellant is permitted to recover the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal from the owner of the vehicle/Respondent No.3. (iii) The Appeal is disposed of. (S.M. MODAK, J.)