Judgment :- 1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the Insurance Company against the Judgment and Decree dated 4.7.2002 made in MCOP.Nos.2616 and 3579/1997 by the learned VI Judge, Small Causes Court (MACT) Chennai, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.68,000/-as total compensation to the claimant in MCOP.No.2616/1997 and Rs.3,75,000/- as total compensation to the claimant in MCOP.No.3579/1997 with interest at 9 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization for the injuries suffered by them in the motor accident that had occurred on 11.6.1997. 2. On 11.6.1997, when the Respondents/claimants were proceeding in a motorcycle, it was hit by a van, as a result of which, both the rider/claimant in MCOP.No.2616/1997 and the pillion rider/claimant in MCOP.No.3579/1997 sustained grievous injuries. The Appellant Insurance Company, who was the 2nd Respondent in the claim petitions, disclaimed its liability on the ground that there was no subsisting Insurance Policy in respect of the Van on the date of the accident. The vehicle was covered by the policy for the period from 12.1.1996 to 11.1.1997 in Policy No.500401/31/41/95/4276 issued in lieu of Cover Note NO.390664. The owner of the vehicle had issued a cheque on 30.1.1997, but the same was returned for want of funds. The Appellant informed the fact of dishonour and the cancellation of the policy to the owner of the vehicle and the said intimation was sent by RPAD. There was no response from the owner and therefore, according to the Appellant, the policy was deemed to have been cancelled. The Appellant, therefore, contended that on the date of the accident, that is, on 11.6.1997, there was no policy. 3. In so far as the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants in both the claim petitions is concerned, there is no quarrel over the same both by the claimants as well as by the Insurance Company and hence, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in both the claim petitions is confirmed. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company is that when there is no subsisting policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner. 4. In this context, the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2008-ACJ-581-SC (Daddappa Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Limited) has been relied upon. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company is that when there is no subsisting policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner. 4. In this context, the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2008-ACJ-581-SC (Daddappa Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Limited) has been relied upon. In the said case, the accident took place on 6.2.1998 and it was long after the communication as to the cancellation of the Insurance Company. The Honourable Supreme Court referred to Section 64B of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provides that no risk will be assumed unless premium is received in advance and after extracting the said Section observed as follows:- "15. The said provision, therefore, in no unmistakable term provides for issuance of a valid policy only on receipt of payment of the premium. 19. The said decision proceeded on the basis that it was the Insurance Company which was responsible for placing itself in the said predicament as it had issued a policy of insurance upon receipt only of a cheque towards the premium in contravention of the provisions of Section 64VB of the 1938 Act. The public interest in a situation of that nature and applying the principle of estoppel, this court held, would prevail over the interests of the Insurance Company. 20. The ratio of the said decision was, however, noticed by this court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Rula (2000-ACJ-630-SC). It was held that ordinarily a liability under the contract of insurance would arise only on payment of premium, if such payment was made a condition precedent for taking effect of the Insurance Policy but such a condition which is intended for the benefit of the insurer can be waived by it. It was opined: (11). If, on the date of the accident, there was a policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle in question, the third party would have a claim against the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle would have to be indemnified in respect of the claim of that party. Subsequent cancellation of the insurance policy on the ground of non payment of the premium would not affect the rights already accrued in favour of the third party. Subsequent cancellation of the insurance policy on the ground of non payment of the premium would not affect the rights already accrued in favour of the third party. The dicta laid down therein clarifies that if on the date of the accident the policy subsists then only the third party would be entitled to avail the benefit thereof. In that case, however, the Honourable Supreme Court in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and in view of the fact that the Appellant hailed from the lowest strata of the society directed the insurer to pay the claim and recover the same from the owner." 5. When the policy is cancelled what happens to third party risk? This question has been answered by the Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh (2004-ACJ-1-SC) in the following words:- "26, A right of the victim of a road accident to claim compensation is a statutory one. He is a victim of an unforeseen situation. He would not ordinarily have a hand in it. The negligence on the part of the victim may, however, be contributory. He has suffered owing to wrongdoing of others. An accident may ruin an entire family. It may take away the only earning member. An accident may result in the loss of her only son to a mother. An accident may take place for variety of reasons. The driver of a vehicle may not have a hand in it. He may not be found to be negligent in a given case. Other factors such as unforeseen situation, negligence of the victim, bad road or the action or inaction of any other person may lead to an accident. 28. In other words, what would also be covered by the contract of insurance vis-a-vis the beneficent statutory provisions like sub section (2) of Section 149 of the said Act would be when death or bodily injury has been caused as a result of assured's own voluntary act. Even an unforeseeable result of assured's deliberate act may come within the purview of the accident. Even if an accident has occurred due to negligent driving of the assured person, it may not prevent recovery under the policy and certainly thereby a third party would not be non suited. 30. Even an unforeseeable result of assured's deliberate act may come within the purview of the accident. Even if an accident has occurred due to negligent driving of the assured person, it may not prevent recovery under the policy and certainly thereby a third party would not be non suited. 30. Sub Section (1) of Section 149 casts a liability upon the Insurer to pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree as if he were the judgment debtor. Although the said liability is subject to the provision of this section, it prefaces with a non obstante clause that the Insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy. Furthermore, the statute raises a legal fiction to the effect that for the said purpose the Insurer would be deemed to be a judgment debtor in respect of the liability of the Insurer. 42. Furthermore, the Insurance Company with a view to avoid its liability is not only required to show that the conditions laid down under Section 149(2)(a) or (b) are satisfied but is further required to establish that there has been a breach on the part of the insured. By reason of the provisions contained in the 1988 Act, a more extensive remedy has been conferred upon those who have obtained judgment against the user of a vehicle and after a certificate of insurance is delivered in terms of Section 147(3) a third party has obtained a judgment against any person insured by the policy in respect of liability required to be covered by Section 145, the same must be satisfied by the Insurer, notwithstanding that the Insurer may be entitled to avoid or to cancel the policy or may in fact have done so. The same obligation applies in respect of a judgment against a person not insured by the policy in respect of such liability, but who would have been covered if the policy had covered the liability of all persons, except that in respect of liability for death or bodily injury." 6. It would, therefore, appear from the above that the cancellation of the policy only entitles the insurer to proceed against the owner and recover what it has paid as per the award, but it must and shall satisfy the innocent third party. 7. It would, therefore, appear from the above that the cancellation of the policy only entitles the insurer to proceed against the owner and recover what it has paid as per the award, but it must and shall satisfy the innocent third party. 7. In this case, though the Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability, but directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount and thereafter, recover the same from the owner. It is evident from the discussions made above that the liability of the Insurance Company to satisfy the award at the first instance and recover the awarded amount from the owner or the driver thereafter has been holding the field for a long time. The Tribunal in exercise of its jurisdiction issued such a direction upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case directing the Insurance Company to deposit the amount and to recover the same from the owner, but however, the decree does not reflect the said direction passed in the judgment. 8. In the present case, both the claimants sustained grievous injuries and suffered disability. For all the aforesaid reasons, the interest of justice requires that the Insurance Company can be directed first to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and then, to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, since these directions have been holding the field for a long time. 9. In the result, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are dismissed. The Appellant Insurance Company is directed first to pay the respective award amounts to the respective claimants in both the claim petitions and then, to recover the same from the insured. For the purpose of recovering the same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit and it may initiate a proceedings before the concerned executing court. No costs.