JUDGMENT : - Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral) Both these appeals are outcome of a motor vehicular accident, which was caused on 29th March, 2004, at about 4.10 P.M., near Lal Tenchi Stop in Ghati Bilwan, Tehsil Jaswan, District Kangra, by the driver-Shyam Singh, while driving the truck, bearing registration No. HP-36-2509, rashly and negligently, as alleged, and hit the scooter, bearing registration No. PB-07E-8561; Shri Amin Chand, who was driving the scooter and Shri Love Bhushan, who was the pillion rider on the scooter, sustained injuries, succumbed to the injuries and their claimants sought compensation by the medium of claim petitions, being M.A.C.P. No. 38-G/2004, titled as Smt. Anjana Sharma & others versus Subedar Rattan Chand (Rtd.) & others and MACP RBT No. 68- G/2010/2004, titled as Smt. Satya Devi & others versus Shri Sham Singh & others, which were determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) on 19th September, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award-I) and 29th September, 2010, (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award-II”), respectively. 2. The Tribunal, after examining the pleadings and the evidence, oral as well as documentary, led in both the claim petitions, awarded ` 14,13,160/- with interest @ 7½% per annum from the date of petition till the date of actual payment, in favour of the claimants in M.A.C.P. 38-G/2004 and ` 12,46,340/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till its realization in MACP RBT No. 68- G/2010/2004 and saddled the insurer-National Insurance Company Limited with liability in both the claim petitions. 3. The insurer-National Insurance Company Limited, feeling aggrieved, has filed both these appeals and has questioned both the impugned awards to the extent whereby it has been held liable to pay the compensation. 4. The claimants, the owner-insured and the driver have not questioned the impugned awards on any count, thus, have attained finality so far it relate to them. 5. Now, the only question to be determined in both the appeals is – whether the insurer-National Insurance Company Limited has rightly been saddled with liability in both the claim petitions or otherwise? 6. I deem it proper to decide both the appeals by a common judgment for the reasons given hereinabove. Brief facts: 7. 5. Now, the only question to be determined in both the appeals is – whether the insurer-National Insurance Company Limited has rightly been saddled with liability in both the claim petitions or otherwise? 6. I deem it proper to decide both the appeals by a common judgment for the reasons given hereinabove. Brief facts: 7. It is profitable to give a flashback of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the appeals in hand. 8. The claimants have claimed compensation as per the break-ups given in the respective claim petitions being the victims of the motor vehicular accident, occurred on 29th March, 2004, at about 4.10 P.M., near Lal Tenchi Stop in Ghati Bilwan, Tehsil Jaswan, District Kangra, which was caused by the driver-Shyam Singh, who was driving the truck, bearing registration No. HP-36-2509, rashly and negligently, and hit the scooter, bearing registration No. PB-07E-8561; being driven by Shri Amin Chand, in which Shri Amin Chand and one Shri Love Bhushan, who was the pillion rider on the scooter, sustained injuries and both of them succumbed to the injuries. 9. The owner-insured, the driver and the insurer-National Insurance Company Limited resisted the claim petitions on the grounds taken in the memo of objections. 10. The following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No. 38-G/2004 on 14th December, 2005: “1. Whether the deceased Love Bhushan died in the accident, caused by rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. HP-36-2509, by its driver Shyam Singh, respondent No. 2, on 29-3-2004 near bus stand Terrace, Tehsil Jaswan, District Kangra, H.P.? ...OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? ...OPP 3. Whether the vehicle was not insured with respondent No. 3 at the time of accident, as alleged? ...OPR-3 4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? ...OPR-3 5. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, at the relevant time? ...OPR-3 6. Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with respondents No. 1 and 2, if so its effect? ...OPR-3 7. Relief.” 11. The following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No. 38-G/2004 on 10th June, 2008: “1. ...OPR-3 6. Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with respondents No. 1 and 2, if so its effect? ...OPR-3 7. Relief.” 11. The following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No. 38-G/2004 on 10th June, 2008: “1. Whether the deceased Amin Chand died in an accident with the offending vehicle truck bearing registration No. HP-36-2509 as a result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle on 29.3.2004 near Lal Tenchi stop in Ghati Bilwan, P.S. Dehra, Distt. Kangra, H.P. and thereby the petitioners being dependent of the deceased are entitled for compensation, if so the extent, and liability thereof, as alleged? ...OPP 2. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid effective driving licence at the time of accident, as alleged? ...OPR 3. Whether the offending vehicle was not insured with the insurer of the offending vehicle at the time of accident, as alleged? ...OPR 4. Whether the accident was the result of contributory negligence of deceased, as alleged? ...OPR 5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder for necessary parties, as alleged? ...OPR 6. Whether the petition is collusive between the petitioners and respondent, as alleged? ...OPR(3) 7. Relief.” 12. The only issue, which is in dispute in both the appeals, is – whether the insurer-National Insurance Company Limited was liable to pay the compensation, i.e. issue No. 3 in both the claim petitions. 13. The Tribunal, after examining the documents on the file including the insurance policy, the cover note and the evidence led by the insurer, came to the conclusion that the insurance policy was subsisting on the date of accident and the ground taken by the insurer- National Insurance Company Limited was not plausible and was not appealing with the conscience of the Court. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) argued that the agent of the insured had issued the cover note without receiving the premium and the same was cancelled due to failure on the part of the insured to deposit the premium amount. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellant(s) is devoid of any force for the following reasons: 15. Admittedly, the cover note was issued alongwith the insurance policy. The cover note and the insurance policy are Ext. RW- 2/B & Ext. RW-2/A in M.A.C.P. No. 38-G/2004 and Ext. RW-3/B and Ext. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellant(s) is devoid of any force for the following reasons: 15. Admittedly, the cover note was issued alongwith the insurance policy. The cover note and the insurance policy are Ext. RW- 2/B & Ext. RW-2/A in M.A.C.P. No. 38-G/2004 and Ext. RW-3/B and Ext. RW-3/A in MACP RBT No. 68-G/2010/2004, respectively. While going through the insurance policy and the cover note, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that it was issued on 28th April, 2003 and was valid up to 27th April, 2004. But, were cancelled on 29th April, 2003, without mentioning any reason. It is nowhere mentioned in the cover note that the premium amount was not received. Further, there is no evidence on the file in support of the fact that the amount was not deposited. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) was asked to show whether there is any evidence on the file to the effect that notice was given to the owner-insured about the cancellation of the insurance policy and the cover on 29th April, 2003, he failed to reply the same. 17. Further, admittedly, there is no evidence on the file in terms of the provisions of Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 (hereinafter referred to as “the Insurance Act”) read with the provisions of Sections 147 to 149 of the MV Act, which provide that the insurer has to intimate the insured about the cancellation of the insurance policy or the cover note and if the accident happens till the intimation is given, it is the insurer, who is liable. 18. The Tribunal, after scanning the entire evidence, held that the insurer-National Insurance Company Limited has failed to show that the insured was informed about the cancellation of the cover note and to the contrary, there is evidence on the file whereby it was stated that the insurer-National Insurance Company Limited has informed the agent about the cancellation of the cover note and not the owner- insured. It is not known how the insurance policy and the cover note can be cancelled by the agent, as in terms of the law applicable, it is required to be done by the competent authority after following due process of law. Thus, it can be safely held that the insurance policy was valid at that particular point of time. 19. It is not known how the insurance policy and the cover note can be cancelled by the agent, as in terms of the law applicable, it is required to be done by the competent authority after following due process of law. Thus, it can be safely held that the insurance policy was valid at that particular point of time. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant(s) has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in a case titled as National Insurance Company Limited versus Yellamma and another, reported in (2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases 526. It is apt to reproduce para 14 of the judgment herein: “14. In today's world payment by cheque is ordinarily accepted as valid tender but the same would be subject to its encashment. A distinction, however, exists between the statutory liability of the insurance company vis-`a-vis the third party in terms of Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act and its liability in other cases but it is clear that if the contract of insurance had been cancelled and all concerned had been intimated thereabout, the insurance company would not be liable to satisfy the claim.” (Emphasis added) 20. A bare perusal of the judgment (supra) reveals that it was mandatory on the part of the insurer to inform the insured about the cancellation of the insurance policy and the cover note, which, admittedly, has not been done in the present case. Thus, the judgment (supra) is not favouring the insurer, rather, going against it. 21. I have laid my hands on a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in a case titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Rula and others, reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1082, wherein it has been held that the insurer has to mandatorily intimate the owner by way of notice about the cancellation of insurance policy and if the accident occurs between the period till the cancellation is conveyed, it is the insurer, who is liable. It is apt to reproduce para 11 of the judgment herein: “11. This decision, which is a 3-Judge Bench decision, squarely covers the present case also. It is apt to reproduce para 11 of the judgment herein: “11. This decision, which is a 3-Judge Bench decision, squarely covers the present case also. The subsequent cancellation of the Insurance Policy in the instant case on the ground that the cheque through which premium was paid was dishonoured, would not affect the rights of the third party which had accrued on the issuance of the Policy on the date on which the accident took place. If, on the date of 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 Insurance Policy on the ground of non-payment of premium would not affect the rights already accrued in favour of the third party.” 22. The matter again came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Deddappa & Ors. versus The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2007 AIR SCW 7948, and the same principle has been laid down. It is apt to reproduce paras 26 to 28 of the judgment herein: “26. We are not oblivious of the distinction between the statutory liability of the Insurance Company vis-a-vis a third party in the context of Sections 147 and 149 of the Act and its liabilities in other cases. But the same liabilities arising under a contract of insurance would have to be met if the contract is valid. If the contract of insurance has been cancelled and all concerned have been intimated thereabout, we are of the opinion, the insurance company would not be liable to satisfy the claim. 27. A beneficial legislation as is well known should not be construed in such a manner so as to bring within its ambit a benefit which was not contemplated by the legislature to be given to the party. 27. A beneficial legislation as is well known should not be construed in such a manner so as to bring within its ambit a benefit which was not contemplated by the legislature to be given to the party. In Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Trichur v. Ramanuja Match Industries [ AIR 1985 SC 278 ], this Court held : "We do not doubt that beneficial legislations should have liberal construction with a view to implementing the legislative intent but where such beneficial .legislation has a scheme of its own there is no warrant for the Court to travel beyond the scheme and extend the scope of the statute on the pretext of extending the statutory benefit to those who are not covered by the scheme." We, therefore, agree with the opinion of the High Court. 28. However, as the appellant hails from the lowest strata of society, we are of the opinion that in a case of this nature, we should, in exercise of our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, direct the Respondent No.1 to pay the amount of claim to the appellants herein and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle viz., Respondent No.2, particularly in view of the fact that no appeal was preferred by him. We direct accordingly. 23. In the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Laxmamma & Ors., reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2657, the Apex Court has discussed the law developed on the issue and ultimately held that if cancellation order is not made or if the accident occurs till the cancellation is made and conveyed, the insurer is liable. It is profitable to reproduce para 19 of the judgment herein: “19. In our view, the legal position is this : where the policy of insurance is issued by an authorized insurer on receipt of cheque towards payment of premium and such cheque is returned dishonoured, the liability of authorized insurer to indemnify third parties in respect of the liability which that policy covered subsists and it has to satisfy award of compensation by reason of the provisions of Sections 147(5) and 149(1) of the M.V. Act unless the policy of insurance is cancelled by the authorized insurer and intimation of such cancellation has reached the insured before the accident. In other words, where the policy of insurance is issued by an authorized insurer to cover a vehicle on receipt of the cheque paid towards premium and the cheque gets dishonored and before the accident of the vehicle occurs, such insurance company cancels the policy of insurance and sends intimation thereof to the owner, the insurance company's liability to indemnify the third parties which that policy covered ceases and the insurance company is not liable to satisfy awards of compensation in respect thereof.” 24. I have laid down the same principle, while dealing with a case of similar nature as Acting Chief Justice of this Court in FAO No. 316 of 2008, titled as M/s New Prem Bus Service versus Laxman Singh & another, decided on 23rd May, 2014. 25. Having said so, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer-National Insurance Company Limited with liability and both these appeals merit to be dismissed; are dismissed and the impugned awards are upheld accordingly. 26. Both these appeals are disposed of alongwith all pending applications, as indicated hereinabove. 27. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants in both the claim petitions strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned awards. 28. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on each of the files.