JUDGMENT :- Being aggrieved by the judgment and Award dated 1.3.2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati in Claim Petition No. 325 of 2004 granting compensation of Rs. 3,70,000/- (inclusive of no fault claim) to be paid by respondents no. 1 to 3 to the original claimants together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from 14.7.2004. 2. Facts in brief are that husband of claimant no. 1; father of claimants no. 2 to 4 and son of claimant no. 5 by name Bhaskar Bramhane, a coolie by occupation, was travelling by Travel Bus No. MH-27/A-9240 from Digram to Arhad (Kurhad), District Amravati. Respondent no.1 was driving the bus which was owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no. 3 (present appellant). While Bhaskar was boarding the bus at Bori Arab village, driver of the bus started it as a result of which, Bhaskar slipped and fell down and died due to bodily injuries. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the date on which accident had occurred, the bus in question was not insured at all. He further submits that the cheque issued by respondent no. 2 towards premium had bounced and, therefore, contract of insurance was rendered void. He has placed reliance on National Insurance v. Seema Malhotra & ors reported in 2001 AIR (SC) 1197 : [2001 (3) ALL MR 521 (S.C.)] and New India Assurance v. Anjanabai & ors reported in I (2006) ACC 156 : [2005(4) ALL MR 348]. 4. It is a settled legal position that when insured fails to pay the premium promised or when cheque issued by him towards premium is returned dishonoured by Bank, insurer need not perform its part of promise and corollary is that insured cannot claim performance from the insurer in such situation. However, in the present case, it was revealed that cheque which according to insurer was dishonoured, was not issued by owner of the bus, but it was issued by one Kolhatkar Medical Stores and owner (present respondent no. 7) claimed that cheque issued by it towards premium was duly encashed. In this premise, the Tribunal disbelieved the defence of insurer after detailed discussion. The Tribunal also held that had there been a registered notice to Regional Transport Office prior to accident about cancellation of insurance, the RTO would not have shown respondent no. 7) claimed that cheque issued by it towards premium was duly encashed. In this premise, the Tribunal disbelieved the defence of insurer after detailed discussion. The Tribunal also held that had there been a registered notice to Regional Transport Office prior to accident about cancellation of insurance, the RTO would not have shown respondent no. 3 (appellant) as insurer in respect of the Bus in question in its papers which were issued after the accident. There is thus no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award since no other point was argued. 5. With the development of law, liability of the Insurance Company has been made strict to the third party even if there is no negligence or even if defences to the insurance company are available. As a result of judicial precedents, insurer is entitled to recover the compensation amount paid to third party from the owner of offending motor vehicle. This recovery can be made by mere filing of an execution application and not by a separate civil suit. 6. In the result, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Liberty to the appellant to adopt remedy in the light of observations in paragraph 5 above if so advised. Amount deposited by appellant in this Court be transferred to the Tribunal for the purpose of execution of Award. Ordered accordingly.