JUDGMENT H. Baruah, J. 1. In challenge is the judgment and award dated 19.2.2010 passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl in MAC Case No. 69 of 2007 whereby and whereunder an award amounting to Rs. 2,26,817 was granted in favour of the claimant with simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization of the same from the opposite party No. 2, the Appellant herein. 2. We have heard Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. S.N. Meitei, learned Counsel for the claimant, the Union of India represented by the Chief Engineer, Project Pushpak, Zemabawk, Aizawl, Mizoram C/o 99 APO.. 3. The issue in this appeal is whether the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the facts as well as the evidence on records both oral and documentary in its proper perspective while passing the impugned judgment and award. It is contented by the Appellant herein that the offending vehicle at the time of accident was not under an Insurance Policy issued by the Appellant company. While submitting, Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, the learned Counsel for the Appellant states that the claim was contested by the Opposite Party No. 2 by submitting written statement and also by adducing evidence wherein it was contended that the Appellant company is not under any obligation to make payment on account of the accident that met with in relation to the offending vehicle not covered by policy. She also submits that the evidence on record shows that the vehicle was not under an Insurance Policy at the time of accident. Though a policy was issued, the same stood cancelled on account of dishonour of the cheque through which the premium was sought to be paid. The factum of cancellation and dishonour of the cheque was intimated to the owner of the vehicle. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on the record, it is contended that the Tribunal failed to consider this aspect and erroneously passed the impugned judgment and award against the Appellant. 4. Now, the question which creeps in is whether the factum of cancellation of the insurance policy had been duly intimated to the owner of the vehicle. 4. Now, the question which creeps in is whether the factum of cancellation of the insurance policy had been duly intimated to the owner of the vehicle. On careful perusal of the judgment of the tribunal and the records of the tribunal, it is noticed that the tribunal did not consider the letter of the Appellant duly served or the owner of the offending vehicle wherein cancellation of the policy on account of dishounour of cheque finds place. The tribunal held that the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the vehicle, the Appellant herein cannot dishounour the liability to make payment of the award as indicated in the judgment. 5. Mr. S.N. Meitei, the learned Counsel appearing for the claimant has also insisted that the factum of the cancellation of the policy though alleged to have been intimated to the owner of the offending vehicle, such fact has not been proved through evidence. Therefore, the claim of the Appellant would not sustain in law. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the facts as well as to the evidence on records and the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel of both the party. Appeal appears to have not carried any merit. 7. Appeal accordingly stands dismissed. Award be paid within 1 (one) month with interest. Transmit back the LCRs. 8. No cost. Appeal dismissed