JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been filed by the The instant appeal ha been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 01.04.2009. passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh and prayed that the award impugned against the appellant may be quashed 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that while deciding issue No. 1, the Claim Tribunal gave finding that Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and the owner of the truck is held respondents for compensation but the Insurance Company has been directed to first pall the amount of compensation to claimants, then, recover the amount of compensation from the truck owner. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company vehemently argued that as per fact, a cheque was issued on 29.11.2003. by the truck owner, upon which the cover-note was issued for insuring the vehicle in question, but on 08.12.2003. the cheque for premium given by the truck owner was dishonoured by the bank and therefore, a letter was dispatched to the truck owner the by Insurance Company on 09.12.2003. stating therein that his vehicle will not be treated as insured and cover-note and the policy shall be treated as ineffective. Further it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the claim Tribunal o the one hand, has accepted the plea of Insurance Company but on the other hand, casted duty upon Insurance Company to first satisfy the award and then recover the said amount form the truck owner. According to the appellant-Insurance Company, the order of the Claim Tribunal is illegal in view of the judgment of Bombay High Court in New India Assurance Col. Ltd. v. Anjanabai and other. reported in 2007 ACJ 610 and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ayeb Mohammed and other reported in 1991 ACJ 650 and in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Seema Malhotro & Ors., reported in 2001 ACJ 638 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the question whether the insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim 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. 4. 4. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant so also perused the impugned award dated 01.04.2009. Upon perusal of the award, it emerges that Claim Tribunal accepted the plea of Insurance Company and decided issue No.1 in favour of Insurance Company but while granting relief, it is ordered that the Insurance Company shall first, satisfy the award, then, recover the amount of award from the owner of the vehicle. 5. In my opinion, there is no substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that order is erroneous because as per the facts of this case, a cover-note was issued when the truck owner issued cheque in favour of the Insurance Company and according to rules, on the basis of such cover-note, the vehicle in question was registered by the Registering Authority. Subsequently, when the cheque was dishonoured on 08.12.2003, the owner of the truck was informed that no premium has been received by the Insurance Company, therefore, his vehicle cannot be treated as insured with the Insurance Company but during this period the alleged accident took place on 01.12.2003 and on that date, the cover-note, which was issued on the basis of the cheque dated 29.11.2003 was valid. Meaning thereby, the vehicle in question was treated to be insured on the day when the occurrence took place but for the purpose of liability, when it is proved before the Court that the cheque issued by the truck owner was dishonoured subsequently, then, the Claim Tribunal gave finding that Insurance Company is not liable for compensation. 6. In this view of the matter, as stated above, the order passed by the Claim Tribunal for satisfying the award first by the Insurance Company is not erroneous because the day on which the occurrence took place, the vehicle in question is to be treated as insured because till that date i.e. 01.12.2003, the cheque was not dishonoured and subsequently, on 08.12.2003, the cheque was dishonoured but prior to that, the occurrence took place and registration of the vehicle was made on the basis of the cover-note issued by the Insurance Company. Therefore, the order of the Claim Tribunal is perfectly in accordance with law. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellant are based upon altogether different facts, therefore, those judgments are not applicable upon the facts of the present case. Therefore, the order of the Claim Tribunal is perfectly in accordance with law. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellant are based upon altogether different facts, therefore, those judgments are not applicable upon the facts of the present case. Further admittedly, the Insurance Company has not been found liable to pay the compensation but only order has been made by the Claim Tribunal that Insurance Company first satisfy the award and pay the compensation to the claimants, then, recover the amount from the truck owner. Thus, in my opinion, the impugned order is perfectly in consonance with the law. 7. Accordingly, this civil misc. appeal being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissedAppeal dismissed. *******