Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed in Claim Case No. 39/96 by the Claims Tribunal cum 3rd Addl. District Judge, Darbhanga. The said claim arose out of accident which took place on 14.5.1996 between the Jeep bearing No. BR 07L-0106 coming from Dumka side and Ajit Bus bearing No. BR- 36-2522 coming from Deoghar side. In the said accident occupants of both the vehicles were seriously injured and the deceased Annapurna Devi travelling with her son Sureshwar Mallick in the Jeep died whereafter the claim case was filed by the claimants and the same was contested by the owner of the offending bus which was insured with the appellant Insurance Company as well as by the Insurer Company. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 81,500/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim case, i.e. 12.12.1996 till the date of recovery and the Insurance Companies of both the vehicles have been held equally liable to pay the same to the claimant. Except the present appeal filed on behalf of insurer Company of the offending bus none of the parties preferred appeal against the said judgment. 2. This Court is informed that the Oriental Insurance Company with which the Jeep was insured has already paid their share compensation amount to the claimant. The appellant has challenged the validity of the judgment to the extent whereby they have been held liable to the ground that on the date of accident the bus in question did not have valid insurance policy and the insurance with the appellant Company was cancelled as the cheque of the owner pursuant to which the policy was issued had been dishonoured on 3.4.1996 and the owner was informed by registered letter on 6.6.1996 in support of which they filed Ext. E in the court below. It is thus submitted on behalf of the appellant that there was no liability of the appellant Company to pay any part of the compensation amount. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the liability with respect to remaining amount, if any, is of the owner and not of the appellant-Company. In support of this, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the liability with respect to remaining amount, if any, is of the owner and not of the appellant-Company. In support of this, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Seema Malhotra & Ors., reported in AIR 2001 S.C. 1197 . 3. Learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that as per law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Inderjit Kaur & Ors., reported in AIR 1998 S.C. 588 and also in view of the observation made in paragraph 2 of the judgment of the National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Seema Malhotra (supra) the. insurer is liable as against third parties because it is covered by the statutory provisions contained in Chapter X of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 . 4. Learned counsel for the owner also relied upon the same decision to support the impugned judgment. He submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in view of law settled in the said judgments. Learned cousnel for the appellant in reply has submitted that the Supreme Court neither in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Inderjit Kaur nor in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Seema Malhotra (supra) was considering the similar facts as in the present case. According to him, in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Inderjit Kaur (supra) the Supreme Court was dealing with the fact where the policy was issued by the appellant on 30th November. 1989 on payment of premium by cheque. The cheque was dishonoured and the letter stating that it had been dishonoured was sent by the appellant to the insured on 23rd January, 1990. The letter claimed that, as the cheque had not been encashed, the premium on the policy had not been received and therefore, the appellant was not at risk. The premium was paid in cash on 2nd May, 1990. In the meantime, on 19th April, 1990, the accident took place : the bus collided with a truck, whose driver died. The Tribunal awarded compensation to be paid by the insured and the appellant Company jointly and severely. The appeal was dismissed by the High Court and the said order was under challenge before the Apex Court. In the meantime, on 19th April, 1990, the accident took place : the bus collided with a truck, whose driver died. The Tribunal awarded compensation to be paid by the insured and the appellant Company jointly and severely. The appeal was dismissed by the High Court and the said order was under challenge before the Apex Court. The Apex Court held that "Despite the bar created by S. 64-VB of the Insurance Act, the appellant, an authorised insurer, issued a policy of insurance to cover the bus without receiving the premium therefor. By reason of the provision of Ss. 147(5) and 149(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant became liable to idemnify third parties in respect to the liability which the policy covered and to satisfy awards of compensation in respect thereof notwithstanding its entitlement (upon which we do not express any opinion) to avoid or cancel the policy for the reason that the cheque issued in payment of the premium thereon had not been honoured." 5. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Seema Malhotra (supra) the Apex Court pointed out that the Insurance Company had not disputed that the claims, if any, made by the kith and kin of the insured for the injuries sustained by them in the accident including the claims made by the legal representatives of the deceased in such accident would also be treated as third party claim and then proceeded to decide the question regarding liability of Insurer where cheque issued for payment of premium is dishonoured by the drawee-Bank. In the said case the facts were that the insured and the appellant Insurance Company entered into an insurance contract on 21st December, 1993 by insuring a Maruti Car for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. On the same day, the insured gave a cheque for Rs. 4492/- towards the first instalment of the premium and the insurance company issued a cover note as contemplated in Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act. But, unfortunately, the last day in the year 1993 became the last day of the insured as well as his Maruti Car because the insured died and the Car was completely damaged in a accident which occurred on 31.12.1993. But, unfortunately, the last day in the year 1993 became the last day of the insured as well as his Maruti Car because the insured died and the Car was completely damaged in a accident which occurred on 31.12.1993. On 10.1.1994 the Bank on which the cheque was drawn by the insured sent an intimation to the insurance Company that the cheque was dishonoured as there was no funds in the account of the insured. On 20.1.1994 the insurance Company informed the business concern of the insured regarding cancellation of the policy with immediate effect. The widow and the children of the insured filed claim for the loss of the vehicle. The claim was rejected by the State Consumer Protection Commission but later reversed by the High Court and the Insurance Company was held liable. The Companys appeal before the Apex Court against the judgment of the High Court was allowed and the judgment of the High Court was set aside and the order passed by the State Consumer Protection Commissioner was restored. It is submitted that in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) the Apex Court laid down the principle that when the insured fails to pay the premium promised, or when the cheque issued by him towards the premium is returned dishonoured by the Bank concerned the insurer need not perform his part of the promise and, further, that the corollary is that the insured cannot claim performance from the insurer in such a situation and thus the Tribunal has erred in fixing the liability of the appellant Company in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. In none of the two cases the Apex Corut was dealing with the similar facts where the cheque was dishonoured and the insured was informed under registered cover before the accident took place. Moreover, after dishonour of the cheque the premium amount has not been paid. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. V/s. Seema Malhotra (supra) has held as follows : "18, Thus, when the insured fails to pay the premium promised, or when the cheque issued by him towards the premium is returned dishonoured by the bank concerned the insurer need not perform his part of the promise. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. V/s. Seema Malhotra (supra) has held as follows : "18, Thus, when the insured fails to pay the premium promised, or when the cheque issued by him towards the premium is returned dishonoured by the bank concerned the insurer need not perform his part of the promise. The corollary is that the insured cannot claim performance from the insurer in such a situation." 7. It is true that in paragraph 2 of the said judgment the Apex Court has noticed the fact that the insured gave a cheque to the insurer towards the first premium amount, but the cheque was dishonoured by the drawee-Bank due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the drawer, but has also noticed and that the Insurance Company had not disputed that the claims, if any, made by the kith and kin of the insured for the injuries sustained by them in the accident including the claims made by the legal representatives of the deceased in such accident would also be treated as third party claims. However in paragraph 18 quoted hereinabove the Apex Court has clearly held that under such circumstances, the insurer need not perform his part of the promise and the corollary is that the insured cannot claim performance from the insurer in such a situation. 8. The Apex Court in the said case has also taken notice of the judgment of a three-Judge Bench in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Inderjit Kaur, AIR 1998 S.C. 588 and in paragraph 10 has said that "Thus, the three Judge Bench refrained from expressing any opinion on the question of insurers entitlement to avoid or cancel the policy as against the insured when the cheque issued for payment of the premium was dishonoured." It was also taken notice of the subsequent decision on the same question by two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Rula, (2000) 3 SCC 195 = AIR 2000 SC 1082 and found that the question of insurers right to repudiate the claim as against the insurer in a similar situation did not arise therein and hence the Bench carried the question. Thus, the Apex Court in the abovementioned case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Rula, (2000) 3 SCC 195 = AIR 2000 SC 1082 and found that the question of insurers right to repudiate the claim as against the insurer in a similar situation did not arise therein and hence the Bench carried the question. Thus, the Apex Court in the abovementioned case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Seema Malhotra considered the said question specifically and on consideration of various provisions of the Insurance Act, the Indian Contract Act and all other aspects has held that when the insured fails to pay the premium promised, or when the cheque issued by him towards the premium is returned dishonoured by the bank concerned the insurer need not perform his part of the promise. The corollary is that the insured cannot claim performance from the insurer in such a situation. 9. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Seema Malhotra (supra) the appellant Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount and the liability in the present case is totally of the owner (respondent nos. 10 and 11). 10. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the judgment and award is set aside to the extent whereby the appellant Company has been held to be equally liable to pay compensation amount. The owner of the offending Ajit Bus (respondent no. 10) is thus directed to discharge his part of liability by paying the remaining amount of compensation to the claimant with up-to-date increment as awarded within two weeks. 11. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.