accident, as shown under Ext.D and E. However, the Insurance Company did not produce the postal receipts sending the intimation to the owner and the RTO, or any service proof thereof. It needs to be emphasized here that Ext.D and E are the letters of the Insurance Company addressed to the owner and the RTO. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmamma and others (supra), the intimation of cancellation must reach to the insured before the accident. Ext.D and E does not satisfy the service of cancellation of intimation on the addressee and admittedly no such service proof has been produced by the Insurance Company. So in absence of any service proof on the insured, it cannot be concluded that the intimation of cancellation of the policy issued on 26.12.2012 has reached the owner before the accident. It is noticeable here that the owner has taken a fresh policy w.e.f. 4.1.2013. This presupposes the genuineness of the owner that return of his earlier Cheque was not deliberate. Otherwise also, in normal course, it cannot be expected that a letter issued by registered post with A.D. (as mentioned at the top of Ext.D and E) through official process would reach the addressee within one day. Issuance of a fresh policy in favour of the insured on 4.1.2013 gives rise an inference that he took a fresh policy immediately upon knowing about cancellation of the earlier policy, which again presupposes that he received the intimation of cancellation either on 4.1.2013 or just before that.
