JUDGMENT : This order shall also govern the disposal of M.A. Nos. 1823/08 and 1824/08 as in all the appeals, the award under challenge is dated 27-3-2008 passed by IMACT, Ujjain whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants were allowed and compensation was awarded. In all the appeals the accident is one and same and parties are also one and same except the claimants. 2. Short facts of the case are that claim petitions were filed before the learned Tribunal alleging that claimants filed the claim petition alleging that on 4-6-2003, Shankarlal @ Hemant Kumar was driving the motorbike along with two pillion riders, namely Santoshbai and his niece Payal aged 3 years, at that time, bus bearing registration No. DLIP-A-0213, which was being driven by respondent No. 4 rashly and negligently, owned by respondent No. 5 and insured with the appellant, dashed the motorbike of Shankarlal, with the result Shankarlal and his sister Santoshbai and niece Payal passed away. It was alleged that claim petition be allowed and adequate compensation be awarded. The claim petition was contested by respondent No. 5 on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of respondent No. 5. It was also alleged that if it is found that accident occurred because of negligence on the part of respondent No. 5, then since offending vehicle was insured, therefore, appellant is liable for compensation. The claim petition was also contested by the appellant on the ground that since premium was paid by cheque which was dishonoured much before the accident and policy was cancelled, therefore, appellant/Insurance Co. is not liable for compensation. It was prayed that claim petition be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded the compensation as under :- M.A. No Claim Case No Name of deceased Amount awarded 1822/08 185/07 Shankarlal Rs. 4,17,500/- 1823/03 186/07 Santoshbai Rs. 2,62,000/- 1824/08 187/07 Payal Rs. 77,000/- 3. The application is filed by Shri O.K. Neema, Counsel for claimants prayed that cross-objection was filed by the claimant in M.A. No. 1824/08 but mistakenly on that cross-objection, M.A. is mentioned as 1823/08, therefore, same be placed in the record of M.A. No. 1824/08. 4. Counsel for the appellant submits that impugned award whereby appellant/Insurance Co. has been held liable for compensation is illegal. 4. Counsel for the appellant submits that impugned award whereby appellant/Insurance Co. has been held liable for compensation is illegal. It is submitted that offending vehicle was insured on the instance of respondent No. 6 for the period from 25-4-2003 to 24-4-2004. The premium was sent for collection to the concerned bank from where it was dishonoured on 7-5-2003 and immediately thereafter by registered letter the policy was cancelled. On 12-5-2003, intimation was given to the concerned by registered post. Since accident occurred on 4-6-2003 and policy was cancelled on 12-5-2003 much before the accident, therefore, learned Tribunal was not justified in holding the appellant liable for payment of compensation. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Dadappa Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2008 ACJ 581 , wherein cheque issued towards premium was dishonoured and the Insurance Co. cancelled the policy, information was also given to the RTO, after taking into consideration the provisions of Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that contract is based on reciprocal promise, reciprocal promises by the parties are conditions precedent for a valid contract. It was further held that Insurance Co. was not liable. It is submitted that appeal be allowed and impugned award whereby appellant/Insurance Co. has been held liable be set aside and that part of the order whereby Insurance Co. has been held liable be set aside. 5. Mr. G.K. Neema, learned Counsel for respondents submits that after due appreciation of evidence learned Tribunal has held the appellant/Insurance Co. liable for compensation which requires no interference. It is submitted that the fact that notice sent by the appellant to the insured was served has not been proved by the appellant. No record was called from the post office. Similarly, bank officer was not called to prove that cheque was dishonoured. Neither the record of RTO nor the record of the Insurance Co. has been filed to show by producing the discharge register that when the letter was issued and was received by the insured. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal has rightly held the appellant-Insurance Co. liable for compensation. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal has rightly held the appellant-Insurance Co. liable for compensation. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Inderjit Kaur, 1998 ACJ 123, wherein cheque was dishonoured and before the premium was paid in cash, the vehicle met with an accident resulting in the death of driver of another vehicle. Insurance Co. denied the liability asserting that under Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, no risk was assumed unless the premium had been received in advance. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that Insurance Co. is liable for third party risk as despite the bar created by Section 64-VB. The Insurance Co. issued a policy to cover the bus without receiving the premium. By reason of provisions of Sections 147 (5) and 149 (1), the Insurance Co. became liable to indemnify third party liability. Reliance is also placed on a decision in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rula, 2000(2) M.P.H.T. 440 (SC) = 2000 ACJ 630, wherein policy was issued on 8-11 -91 and cheque towards premium was dishonoured on 16-11-91 and vehicle met with accident during midnight on 8-11-91 resulting in death of 3 persons, Insurance Co. contended that policy represents a contract between insurer and insured for consideration of premium and if premium is not paid, the contract would not be valid and under Section 64-VB of Insurance Act, no risk would be assumed unless premium was received in advance, the question whether Insurance Co. is exempted from third party liability if the cheque towards premium is dishonoured and policy is cancelled after accrual of liability, was replied in negative and it was held that payment of premium is not the concern of third party and subsequent cancellation of policy due to dishonour of cheque would not affect the rights of a third party which had accrued on the date of accident. In M.A. No. 1824/08, learned Counsel submits that in a death case, the amount awarded as Rs. 77,000/- is on lower side for which cross-objections have been filed for enhancement. It is submitted that cross-objections filed by the appellant be allowed and compensation be enhanced. 6. Mr. In M.A. No. 1824/08, learned Counsel submits that in a death case, the amount awarded as Rs. 77,000/- is on lower side for which cross-objections have been filed for enhancement. It is submitted that cross-objections filed by the appellant be allowed and compensation be enhanced. 6. Mr. S. V. Dandwate, learned Counsel for appellant submits that in M.A. No. 1824/08 since the respondent is challenging the liability of the Insurance Co., therefore, cross-objection filed by the claimant for enhancement of the award is not maintainable. 7. From perusal of record, it appears that to prove the case that policy which was issued by the appellant/Insurance Co. was cancelled, appellant has examined Mr. Arun Kewalia, Administrative Officer of the appellant/Insurance Co. and has also produced the documents (Exhs. D-l to D-7 and Exh. P-8). Exh. D-3 is receipt of registered letter. Exh. D-5 is the intimation received from the bank, dated 3-5-2003 whereby cheque submitted by the appellant was returned as unpaid. Exh. D-2 is the cheque. Exh. D-4 is the intimation wherein reason shown for return of the cheque is mentioned as "exceeds arrangement". Exh. D-6 is the copy of the letter dated 12-5-2003 whereby respondent No. 6 was informed about the cancellation of policy. Exh. D-7 is the copy of the letter whereby RTO was informed. Respondent No. 6 has examined himself and has denied on affidavit that he has not received any intimation from the appellant/Insurance Co. whereby policy was cancelled. Sufficient evidence is on record to prove that premium which was paid for the insurance of offending vehicle was dishonoured. The receipt whereby intimation was sent is not having complete name of respondent No. 6 along with his address. No further evidence is adduced to demonstrate that in fact the intimation sent was received by the respondent No. 6. The discharge register of the appellant/Insurance Co. was also not filed. Similarly, dispatch was also not examined. In absence of acknowledgment it cannot be presumed intimation was duly received by the respondent No. 6, however, the fact remains that cheque was dishonoured, with the result the policy was cancelled prior to the accident, in the facts and circumstances of the case this Court find that at the most right of recovery could have been given to the appellant. So far as enhancement is concerned, it appears that in a case of child death which took place in the year 2003, the amount awarded as Rs. 77,000/- is just and proper, otherwise also the cross-objections filed by the claimant for enhancement of amount in an appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Co. wherein the liability is challenged is not maintainable. 8. In view of this, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part by modifying the findings whereby appellant/Insurance Co. has been held liable to the effect that appellant shall pay and shall have a right to recover the same from respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal stands disposed of. Copy of the order be placed in the connected cases.