Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010197762018 2026:GAU-AS:13866 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MACApp./909/2018 SRI UDIPTA SAIKIA S/O SRI LAKHESWAR SAIKIA, VILL. BARANGABARI, P.S. GOHPUR, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM, 784172 VERSUS ICICI LOMBARD MOTOR INSURANCE CO. LTD AND ANR GUWAHATI-22, PIN 781022 (INSURER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE VIDE POLICY NO. 3005/23930720/21124/000 VALID UP TO 11.8.2015) 2:SRI GHANA SAIKIA S/O LATE BHOLA SAIKIA VILL. BARANGABARI P.S. GOHPUR DIST. SONITPUR (ASSAM) 784168 (OWNER CUM RIDER OF MOTOR CYCLE BEARING REGN. NO. AS-12/H-4885 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS D D ROY, MS. P R BARUAH,MS. A BEGUM,MS. KAWIZENGDAULIU Advocate for the Respondent : MR T KALITA, S BHUYAN(R2) BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER For the appellant : Ms. D.D Roy, Advocate Page No.# 2/8 For the respondents :Mr. T Kalira, Advocate Date of hearing :15.09.2026 Date of Judgment &Order :18.09.2026 JUDGMENT &ORDER (CAV) 1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act has been preferred by the claimants, challenging the judgment dated 18.5.2018 passed by the learned MACT No. 3, Kamrup, Guwahati inMAC Case No. 1999/2015. 2. Heard Ms. DD Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. T Kalita, the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal is that the claimant/appellant had preferred the MAC Petition No. 1999/2015, praying for compensation for the injury caused to him in a motor vehicle accident on 20.03.2015 involving vehicle Motorcycle No. AS-12 H-4885, which was insured with ICICI Lombard Insurance Company Limited. The accident occurred on 20.03.2015, when he was travelling as a pillion rider of the offending motorcycle and the rider of the motorcycle could not control the vehicle due to excessive speed and it met with an accident, as a result of which the appellant/claimant sustained grievous injuries.A case was registered as Gohpur P.S, GD Entry No. 597 dated 20.03.2015. 4. The owner-cum-driver of the vehicle did not contest the case, however, the insurer/ICICI Lombard Insurance Company Limited contested the case by filing written statement. 5. The appellant/claimant adduced their evidence and exhibited all the required Page No.# 3/8 documents as exhibit1 to exhibit 5 (4) series.The insurer of the vehicle also examined one witness as DW1 and exhibited their documents as Exhibit A and B. 6. After appreciating the evidence and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rupees 3,57,467/-(rupees three lakhs fifty seven thousand four hundred and sixty seven) only with interest at 7.5%p.a from the date of filing the claim petition in favour of the claimant. However, the Tribunal directed the vehicle owner to pay the awarded amount instead of directing the Insurance company. 7. Being aggrieved, the claimant/appellant has preferred the instant appeal against the impugned judgment dated 18.5.2018 passed in MAC Case No. 1999/2015 on the ground that the Tribunal had erred in law by directing the owner to pay the awarded amount. 8. It is stated that the learned Tribunal had accepted the oral statement of the DW1 and did not take into consideration that the dishonoured cheque towards the premium payment was never produced before the court, nor exhibited. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the two exhibits of the insurance company are an intimation letter to the owner and intimation letter to the Regional Transport Authority respectively. However, there is no postal receipt and the insurer had also not proved the two exhibits by summoning the owner and the Regional Transport Authority to prove the said exhibits. As such, the learned Tribunal could not have come to the conclusion that the offending vehicle was not covered with a valid insurance policy. In view of above submissions, the counsel for the appellant prays that the impugned judgment dated 18.05.2018 passed in MAC Case No. 1999/2015 may be Page No.# 4/8 modified to the extent that the insurer/ICICI Lombard should be directed to satisfy the award amounting to Rs. 3,57,467/-. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Kurnool vs Boya Siva Kumar and Another passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2006 (3) TAC 278 (AP) and the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this court in MAC App 98/2013. 10. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent/insurance company, Mr. T. Kalita, has submitted that by a letter dated 06.10.2014, the owner of the vehicle has already been intimated regarding the dishonour of the cheque for the payment of his premium towards the policy. The said letter dated 06.10.2014 has been exhibited by the insurer as Exhibit 1. The DW1 deposed that the insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle covered risk for the period 12.08.2014 to 11.08.2015. As a premium for the continuation of the insurance policy, the owner of the vehicle had issued an account payee cheque being No. 972154 dated 12.08.2014 in favour of theICICI Lombard Insurance Company Limited. However, the cheque issued by the vehicle owner was returned dishonoured by the bank. Accordingly, the insurance policy stood cancelled with effect from 12.08.2014. Besides intimating the vehicle owner, the Regional Transport Officer was also intimated by letter dated 06.10.2014 regarding the cancellation of insurance and the said letter was exhibited as Exhibit B. Letter to the owner is Exhibit A and letter to the Regional Transport Officer is Exhibit B. Since the accident occurred on 20.03.2015, the policy had already been cancelled on the date of the accident and the vehicle owner had also been intimated regarding the cancellation and dishonour of his cheque as far back as on 6.10.2014. 11. The counsel for the insurance company has also raised the issue of Page No.# 5/8 maintainability of the present appeal. Learned counsel submits that the claim petition of the claimants/appellants has been allowed and the Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of the claimant and therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant is an aggrieved party. He submits that it is only the vehicle owner who can be said to be an aggrieved party and he is not before this court. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company submits that the respondent insurance company ceased to be the insurer of the offending vehicle from the day when the premium was due, on account of non-realization of the premium, which amounted to non-compliance of Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act. Therefore, the contract of insurance was void ab initio due to non- consideration. It is well-settled that a contract involves consideration, and without consideration there can be no contract. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurer, therefore, submits that the learned tribunal has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the offending vehicle was not covered with any insurance policy on the date of the accident, and as such the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. Consequently, learned counsel submits that the claimant/appellant has not been able to make out a case for the interference of this Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 14. This Court has duly considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and also examined the pleadings as well as the trial court records and the judgments relied upon. 15. At the outset, this Court will consider as to whether the instant appeal by the claimant is maintainable in a case where the tribunal has awarded compensation, but has exonerated the insurer and directed the owner alone to Page No.# 6/8 satisfy the award. 16. Section 173 Clause (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act gives a right of appeal to any person aggrieved by an award of a claims tribunal. A claimant is an aggrieved person where the award places the liability exclusively on the owner of the vehicle instead of the insurer, because the claimant has a legitimate interest in obtaining satisfaction of the award from the insurer. Therefore, the claimant need not be dissatisfied with the quantum, and appeal can be confined to the finding on liability and can seek modification of the award by directing the Insurer to satisfy it. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the instant appeal is maintainable, and the court can consider the appeal on merits, more so, in a case like the present one where the vehicle owner did not appear and did not contest the claim petition. 17. The Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vrs Laxmamma reported in2012 (5) SCC 234, held that ordinarily the insurer remains liable to third parties when a premium cheque is dishonored. However, there is an exception in as much as that liability ceases when the insurer cancels the policy and the intimation of cancellation reaches the insured before the accident. The pertinent point is that the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmamma (supra) did not merely state that the insurer must cancel the policy before the accident. It says that the insurer’s liability ceases when intimation of such cancellation has reached the insured before the accident. Applying the said principle, the insurer, therefore, has to establish not merely that it cancelled the policy and sent an intimation letter on 06.10.2014, but the insurer also has to prove that the cancellation intimation reached the owner before 20.03.2015 i.e., before the date of the accident. Therefore, the insurer must prove by cogent evidence that the cancellation was communicated Page No.# 7/8 to the insured before the accident. 18. In the case of Boya Siva Kumar (supra) referred by the appellant also, the court held that the question as to whether the cheque was dishonored at all is a matter of fact which must be proved to the satisfaction of the tribunal. The issuance of a cheque and dishonor of the same are internal matters between the insurer and the insured, and the victim of an accident would not have any role in this regard. Mere exhibition of the intimation letters does not constitute the proof of the factum of dishonor of cheque. 19. In the instant case, it has been observed that the insurance company did not exhibit the dishonored cheque, nor did it exhibit any acknowledgment or postal tracking report to prove the receipt by the vehicle owner. In fact, the recipients of the intimation letter, i.e., the vehicle owner or the Regional Transport Authority, were never examined in order to prove the receipt of the intimation letters. In such a case, the insurer has not discharged the burden necessary to establish the exception recognized in the case of Laxmamma (supra). 20. The legal position which remains, therefore, is that a policy issued against a cheque continues to attract third-party liability despite dishonor, unless the cancellation is communicated to the insured before the accident, and the burden of proving such communication lies on the insurance company. 21. In the instant case, the insurance company may have cancelled the policy internally, but in the absence of satisfactory evidence that the cancellation was communicated to and reached the insured vehicle owner before the accident, the insurer cannot escape its statutory liability towards the third-party claimants. Consequently, the insurer would remain liable to satisfy the award. The statutory scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act is intended to protect third-party Page No.# 8/8 victims. Therefore, a plea by the insurer that it was absolved from liability on account of cancellation of the policy must be established by cogent evidence before the statutory liability towards the third party claimant is displaced and the insurer cannot take advantage from the cancellation which was not shown to have been effectively communicated before the accident. 22. In the facts and circumstances stated above, the finding of the learned Tribunal exonerating the insurer cannot be sustained. The claimant/appeal is, therefore, maintainable and deserves to be allowed to the extent of liability. 23. The impugned judgment date 18.05.2018 is accordingly modified to the extent that the respondent /ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Company Limited is liable to satisfy the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal to the claimant with interest as directed in the judgment dated 18.5.2018 passed by the learned MACT No. 3, Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No. 1999/2015. 24. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. 25. The Registry shall send back the Trial Court records. JUDGE Comparing Assistant