ORDER This is an appeal preferred against the Judgment dated 27th September, 2010 and Award dated 14th December, 2010 passed in M.V. Claim Case No. 34/2004 / 30/2010 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act by the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.–III, Nawadah-Cum-Additional Motor Vehicle Claim Tribunal, Nawadah, awarding a sum of Rs. 19,45,000/- to the claimants-respondent nos. 1 & 2 as compensation against the death of the husband of the claimant-respondent no. 1, namely, Pankaj Kumar due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the truck bearing no. - HR – 38 – H – 3716 and the insurer of the vehicle, i.e., the appellant has been directed to indemnify the award in the manner as prescribed by the Claim Tribunal. 2. Since the fact relating to accident and quantum of award etc. are not in conflict, hence the same need not be reproduced. 3. The appeal involves a very limited question as to whether the vehicle in question was ensured on the date and time of accident, i.e., on 19.02.2004 at about 9.45 p.m. 4. It is admitted by the parties that the initial insurance policy with respect to the vehicle in question was issued on 12.12.2003 to be effective from 12.12.2003 (00.00 hours) to midnight of 11.12.2004 (12.00 p.m.) against the premium paid through cheque issued by the owner, but the cheque appears dishonored about which the appellant-insurer got information on 19.02.2004. The owner of the vehicle, the respondent no. 3 asserts himself being aware of the same immediately through the driver, the respondent no. 4 of the vehicle at about 11.00 a.m. and soon thereafter he handed over the due amount to the Branch Manager well within an hour on the assurance of revival of the policy, but as per the insurer-appellant, the policy remained cancelled, due intimation was given through and Registered Post on 20.02.2004, meanwhile, on same day the due amount in cash was deposited with fresh proposal by the owner, consequently, fresh policy was issued. But since the earlier policy was cancelled due to cheque being bounced, the insurer is not at all liable to indemnify any claim against the owner of the vehicle. 5. But since the earlier policy was cancelled due to cheque being bounced, the insurer is not at all liable to indemnify any claim against the owner of the vehicle. 5. Thus the only question to be determined in this appeal as to whether the appellant is liable to indemnify the award or it is the liability of the owner of the vehicle, respondent no. 3 to do so. 6. In the above background the stand of the owner of the vehicle, specially, in paragraph – 12 of the written statement appears relevant which states about the filing of writ petition, bearing no. WP(C) No. 5663 of 2004 before the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi for certain declaration regarding automatic revival of the policy issued earlier since payment against dishonored cheque was made by the owner. 7. It would not be out of place to mention here that taking into consideration the finding of the Claim Tribunal on the issue and pendency of the present appeal vide order dated 23.08.2012, the aforesaid writ petition stands dismissed as wholly misconceived. 8. Before filing of above writ application, Exhibit – ‘B-1’ is an application dated 13.08.2004 submitted by the owner of the vehicle to the insurer-appellant seeking cancellation of another certificate of insurance dated 20.02.2004 making earlier certificate issued on 12.12.2003 effective since the date of inspection, wherein, paragraphs – 5 & 6 reads as such:– “5. Unfortunately, the aforesaid cheque of mine was dishonoured. In this regard, intimation was given to me by your branch office at Kodarma on 19-2-2004 at 11 A.M. on the same day i.e. on 19-2-2004 at about 11-30 A.M. I deposited cash in the branch office, Kodarma and same was accepted.” “6. After receipt of cash, the Branch office Kodarma informed me that the Insurance Policy would be revived automatically and with date back with effect from 12-12-2003”. 9. The owner of the vehicle, i.e., the opposite party no. 1 in the proceeding before the court below appeared as witness no. – 2 and in paragraph – 3 of the examination-in-chief said about receiving knowledge about dishonored cheque on 19.02.2004 by his own driver, namely, Balram Singh, the opposite party no. – 2 (respondent no. 9. The owner of the vehicle, i.e., the opposite party no. 1 in the proceeding before the court below appeared as witness no. – 2 and in paragraph – 3 of the examination-in-chief said about receiving knowledge about dishonored cheque on 19.02.2004 by his own driver, namely, Balram Singh, the opposite party no. – 2 (respondent no. 4) and subsequent payment of cash immediately in between 11.00 – 11.30 a.m. to the Manager of Insurance Company, who according to him, has assured for continuity of earlier certificate/policy and paragraph – 12 of the cross-examination asserts that the registered letter issued by the Insurance Company was not received by him on 19.02.2004, but in paragraph – 13 of the same, admits that he is aware of the endorsement in the policy that the moment cheque is bounced the policy shall be deemed cancelled. Further, in a reply to court’s question in paragraph – 22, he admits that neither he demanded nor any receipt was issued against his alleged payment of the premium in cash on 19.02.2004 at about 11.00 – 11.30 a.m. Here it is also relevant to consider his statement made in paragraph – 10 of the cross-examination about denying submission filing of any proposal for insurance on 20th February, 2004, but his this statement stands falsified by Exhibit – ‘F’, a fresh proposal form duly filled in for insurance of the vehicle containing his uncontroverted signature seeking renewal of the policy from 20.02.2004. 10. As stated above the opposite party no. 1 claims to be intimated about the cheque being dishonored on 19.02.2004 itself through his driver, the opposite party no. 2, but the said informer, on being examined in court as opposite party witness no. 1, is completely silent about the cheque being dishonored or passing of any such information to the owner. 11. Contrary to above, it is the pleading with proof that the insurer-appellant got the intimation from the bank about bouncing of cheque on 19.02.2004 and such intimation through registered post was issued on 20.02.2004 to the owner, the respondent no. 3 and other concerned. 12. 11. Contrary to above, it is the pleading with proof that the insurer-appellant got the intimation from the bank about bouncing of cheque on 19.02.2004 and such intimation through registered post was issued on 20.02.2004 to the owner, the respondent no. 3 and other concerned. 12. It is relevant to note that the cheque through which premium was paid for the insurance, stands dishonored and the insurer-appellant on being aware of the same, only on 19.02.2004, consequently, prepared and dispatched letter for intimation to the owner and others through registered post on 20.02.2004, but it is the owner, the opposite party no. 1, who himself comes forward with a assertion of having knowledge about the same on 19.02.2004. But of course with additional statement of tendering premium amount in cash on the same day against certain assurances which he alone needs to prove, wherein he failed. 13. From the above discussions, it clearly emerged that though there was a policy issued by the insurer-appellant as regard to vehicle in question on 12.12.2003, but the same deemed cancelled and the owner had knowledge in the morning of 19th February, 2004 itself roughly ten hours before the accident in question taking place. Had the owner, the opposite party no. 1 not claimed either on being ill advised or as over precaution such knowledge, the situation could have been different. And the proposal for insurance is accepted on 20.02.2004 by the insurer-appellant without physical verification of the vehicle, which undisputedly meets an accident in previous night at about 9.45 p.m. on 19.02.2004, either due to negligence or over confidence upon the owner. All such conduct proved costly for both of them. 14. Before the Apex Court in the case of “Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunita Rathi and Others” reported in “ AIR 1998 S.C. 257 ”, question of fixing liability between the owner and insurer arose and the Apex Court though holding the owner liable for the same, but simultaneously, also observed that the claimant is not required to refund the money already received. Similarly, in another case of “Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanjappan and Others” reported in “ (2004) 13 S.C.C 224 ”, the Apex Court relaxed the insurer from initiating a fresh proceeding for recovery of the money from the owner but suggested to do the same in on going execution proceeding. Similarly, in another case of “Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanjappan and Others” reported in “ (2004) 13 S.C.C 224 ”, the Apex Court relaxed the insurer from initiating a fresh proceeding for recovery of the money from the owner but suggested to do the same in on going execution proceeding. Lastly, in the case of “Deddappa & Ors. Vs. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.” reported in “ AIR 2008 S.C. 767 ”, the Apex Court granted the right of recovery from the owner but initial payment to the claimant was to be made by the insurer. 15. No doubt, in the case in hand, the owner by admitting knowledge of bouncing of cheque with its consequences has created a thin, but strong line between him and the insurer about the liability, but in between the controversies amongst the two giants, it is the poor claimant, who has been suffered a lot for about nine years without any fault. Thus, taking inspiration from the decisions aforementioned and the facts and circumstances discussed above, leads towards a direction to the appellant-insurer to indemnify the award as it is but with liberty to recover from the owner-respondent no. 3. As such the appeal succeeds in part and the statutory deposit shall be transmitted to the Claim Tribunal for adjustment against payment.