1 14) FA 562-2015111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. FIRST APPEAL NO. 562 OF 2015 HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THR. THE MANAGER, THANE OFFICE, THANE VS SMT. NILIMA MOHANRAO JOSHI AND ORS. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Shri D.N.Kukday, Advocate for Appellant. Shri N.P.Lambat, Advocate for Respondent nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. DATE : 06/02/ 2026 Heard learned counsel for the Appellant, learned counsel for Respondent nos. 2 and 3. None for Respondent no. 1. Perused the paper-book. 2. This is an Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act’) by the Insurance Company against the Judgment and Award dated 27/03/2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Wardha (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in M.A.C.P. No. 78/2010 granting compensation of Rs. 2,73,500/-, with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 3. The only ground canvassed by the learned counsel for the Appellant – Insurance Company is that, the cheque issued towards the premium of insurance policy of the offending vehicle got dishonoured prior to the accident. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was not covered by the insurance policy. He submits that, the learned 2026:BHC-NAG:2040 2 14) FA 562-2015222 Tribunal has committed an error and so the impugned judgment and award be set aside. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for Respondent nos. 2 and 3 that, there is no co-relation between the dishonoured cheque brought on record by the Appellant - Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal and the Insurance Policy issued by the Appellant - Insurance Company. He submits that, the dishonoured cheque was of the higher amount than the amount of premium. He submits that, on the basis of material available on record, the learned Tribunal has rightly observed that, there was no co-relation between the dishonoured cheque and the insurance policy. He submits that, the Appeal has no merit and the same be dismissed. 5. Perused the paper-book. The learned Tribunal while considering Issue no. 3 has observed thus, “Issue no.3:- Respondent no. 2 has come up with a specific defence that the policy certificate no. VG00100609000100 (Ex.38) (effective from 2-5-2010 to 1-5-2011) was cancelled because the cheque of premium issued by respondent no. 1 was dishonoured. Another policy bearing no. VG00101168000100 was issued on 3-6-2010. Accordingly there was no protection of insurance to the said truck owned by respondent no.1. It is pertinent to note that respondent no. 2 in order to bare out its statement has examined one Samir Devsarkar, its employee. He produced Ex.52 - the cheque which was allegedly bounced and consequent upon that the policy at Ex.38 was cancelled. It is however pertinent to note that Ex.52 is categorically denied to be the cheque issued by respondent no. 1. According to respondent no. 1, she did not issue the cheque but the premium for Ex.38 - the policy was paid in cash. In the circumstance, heavy burden is on respondent no. 2 to prove that this was a cheque of premium for the policy at Ex.38. With all significance it be noted that the 3 14) FA 562-2015333 policy at Ex.38 is issued on 2-5-2010 and made effective on the same day from 17.22 hours. Ex.52 - the cheque is dt. 12-5- 2010 and appears to have been issued by the Director for HB Capitals Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Respondent no. 1 obviously has no concern with HB Capitals Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Even otherwise the policy at Ex.38 could not have been issued without accepting the cheque. So, the policy if issued on 2-5- 2010, the cheque must have been issued by respondent no. 1 on 2-5-2010 or prior to that. The cheque at Ex.52 is however dt. 12-5-2010. Another anomaly in the cheque and policy at Ex.38 is with respect to amount. The amount of premium as shown in policy is Rs.6240 while the cheque is of Rs.13,258. Thus, the cheque is of some more amount. Respondent no. 2- insurance company could not explain as to why respondent no. 1 would pay the cheque of Rs.13258 when the premium was only of Rs.6240. So, for all these reasons the cheque at Ex.52 cannot be related with Ex.38. In such a situation the statement on oath of respondent no.1 that she paid premium in cash and obtained policy at Ex.38 is bound to be accepted as a gospel truth. This statement also deserves to be admitted as true since respondent no. 2 did not produce any policy bearing no. VG00101168000100 which was allegedly issued on 3-6-2010. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence from respondent no.2 in support of its statement in WS at Ex.26 that after cancellation of the policy effective from 2-5-2010 (Ex.38) the new policy bearing no. VG00101168000100 was issued on 3-6-2010. As a result, I hold that the offending truck was insured with respondent no.2 and the protection of insurance was alive on the day of accident i.e. 5-5-2010. As a sequel, respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to petitioner.” 6. On going through the record of the Claim Petition, it becomes clear that, the aforesaid observations made by the learned Tribunal are in consonance with the material available before it. There is no perversity in the observations made by the learned Tribunal. This being the position, the said ground has no merit and no interference is called for in the impugned Judgment and Award. In this view of the matter, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following order:- 4 14) FA 562-2015444 ORDER I) The Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. II) R & P be sent back to the learned Tribunal. (NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) B.T.K.