JUDGMENT :- Being aggrieved with the award of compensation of Rs.31,894/- for the damage caused to STC bus (erstwhile Thanthai Periyar Transport Corporation) bearing registration No.TCB 6085, Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this Appeal. 2. Brief facts which are relevant for disposal of this Appeal are as follows: - On 28. 1991 bus belonging to the erstwhile Thanthai periyar Transport Corporation, presently State Transport Corporation, bearing registration No.TCB 6080 was proceeding from Pomboor to Villupuram. At about 6.30 P.M. when the bus was proceeding near Vikravandi, the bus owned by the Second Respondent which was insured with the Appellant Insurance bearing registration No.TDO 1224 had overtaken STC bus in a rash and negligent manner. At that time the lorry bearing registration No.ADT 865 owned by the third Respondent, which was insured with the fourth Respondent, came on the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and gave horn while closely nearing STC bus. On hearing horn STC bus driver swerved the bus to the right, it dashed against the left side of private bus and at that time, the lorry dashed against the STC bus. Alleging that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of private bus as well as the lorry driver, STC has filed Petition claiming compensation of Rs.55,4864. 3. Opposing the claim, Insurance Company has filed counter denying the validity of the insurance. According to the Appellant Insurance Company, since the cheque towards premium given by the second respondent was dishonored by the Bankers, there was no valid insurance for the bus owned by the second respondent. 4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of State Transport Corporation P.W.s 1 and 2 were examined. Exs.P.1 to P.4 was marked. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the respondents. Upon consideration of evidence adduced by the STC, Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the STC Bus TCB 6085 and private bus bearing Registration No.TDO 1224 and the lorry bearing Registration No.ADT 865; the Tribunal has held that all three vehicles are equally responsible for the accident and equally apportioned the negligence as well as the liability to pay the compensation. Based on Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-4 series Photographs, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that damages to the tune of Rs.47,840/-was caused to the STC bus. Based on Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-4 series Photographs, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that damages to the tune of Rs.47,840/-was caused to the STC bus. The Tribunal held 1/3rd of damages i.e. Rs.15,946/- has to be borne by the STC itself. It was further held that the insured and the insurer of private bus and the insured and the insurer of the lorry are liable to pay compensation of Rs.31,894/- to the STC equally apportioned among these two tort-feasors and the insurer. 5. Challenging its liability, insurer of the private bus bearing Registration No.TDO 1224 has filed this appeal. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that there was no concluded contract between the owner of vehicle and the appellant Insurance Company and therefore, no liability could be fastened upon the appellant. It was further submitted that the Tribunal failed to note that the cheque issued by the insured was dishonored by the Bankers and therefore, appellant Insurance Company cannot be saddled with liability. 6. The manner of accident is not in dispute. Likewise, apportionment of liability upon STC and upon the private bus and lorry is also not in dispute. Since the manner of accident and apportionment of liability is not seriously disputed, it is not necessary to refer to the details of the accident and the findings of the Tribunal equally apportioning negligence on all three vehicles and equally apportioning the liability. 7. The main contention of appellant Insurance Company is that it is not liable to pay compensation since there was no valid insurance policy for the private bus TDO 1224. In the counter filed by the appellant Insurance, it is averred that cheque issued by second respondent for paying the premium has been dishonored by the Bankers and therefore, there was no valid insurance for the said bus. 8. Admittedly, the appellant United India Insurance is the insurer of the private bus TDO 1224. The burden lies upon the appellant Insurance Company to show that the insured had issued cheque and the same bounced; and therefore, there was no valid insurance. Excepting the averments in the counter, no other material was adduced by the appellant Insurance Company to show that there was no valid insurance. The burden lies upon the appellant Insurance Company to show that the insured had issued cheque and the same bounced; and therefore, there was no valid insurance. Excepting the averments in the counter, no other material was adduced by the appellant Insurance Company to show that there was no valid insurance. The appellant Insurance Company has not chosen to adduce any evidence to substantiate its plea that the cheque issued by the second Respondent was dishonored and there was no valid insurance on the date of accident. 9. As per the statutory requirement of M.V. Act, a public vehicle is to be necessarily insured before plying as a public vehicle. In the absence of policy being produced, it is to be presumed that the private bus bearing Registration No.TDO 1224 had statutory coverage and the policy must be taken to be "Act only policy". 10. As per Sec. 147 (2)(b) of Motor Vehicles Act, the statutory liability to damages caused to property of Third Party is restricted only to Rs.6,000/-. Sec. 147(2)(b) of M.V. Act reads as under: "(2) Subject to the proviso to Sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in Subsection (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely :- (a)..... (b) In respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand." In view of Sec. 147(2)(b) and since, Policy to be taken as "Act Only Policy", the statutory liability of the Insurance Co. would only be Rs.6,000/-. 11. Portion of damages apportioned on the appellant insurance is Rs.15,947/-, out of which, the liability of the Insurance Company is to be limited to Rs.6,000/- and the balance of Rs.9,947/- is payable by the second respondent – owner of the private bus. In the absence of evidence and policy produced by the owner of the vehicle, showing payment of extra premium, the Tribunal was not right in fastening the entire liability of Rs.15,947/- upon the appellant Insurance Company. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is to be modified in terms of Sec.147(2)(b). 12. The learned Counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company has forcibly contended that since there was no valid insurance, liberty be given to the appellant Insurance Company to initiate separate proceedings to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is to be modified in terms of Sec.147(2)(b). 12. The learned Counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company has forcibly contended that since there was no valid insurance, liberty be given to the appellant Insurance Company to initiate separate proceedings to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. As stated earlier, the Insurance Company has not adduced any iota of evidence to show that there was no valid insurance policy, nor has it examined any of its officers to substantiate its defense that cheque issued by the insured bounced. In the absence of any evidence adduced by the appellant Insurance Company, no direction could be given permitting the appellant Insurance Company to file suit to recover the amount indemnified. 13. In the result, "The quantum of compensation of Rs.31,894/- and equal apportionment of liability upon private bus TDO 1224 and lorry ADT 865 is confirmed; "It is held that the liability of the appellant Insurance Company is only Rs.6,000/-[Rupees Six Thousand only]. "Balance of Rs.9,947/-[of the total compensation of Rs.15,947/- apportioned to the appellant and the owner of the lorry] is payable by the owner of the lorry – second respondent to the first respondent STC. "Apportionment of 50% liability upon the respondents 2 and 4 – insured and insurer of the lorry ADT 865 shall hold good. "The excess amount of compensation (deposited by the appellant Insurance Company) shall be refunded to the appellant Insurance Company. There is no order as to costs in this appeal.