JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral) Both these appeals are outcome of a common award dated 27th June, 2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No. 8 of 2007, titled Smt. Sanjana Kumari versus Sukhdev & others, whereby and whereunder compensation to the tune of Rs.5,88,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the United India Insurance Company Limited, being the insurer of the vehicle, was saddled with liability, for short the “impugned award”. 2. The insurer-United India Insurance Company Limited in FAO No. 444 of 2009 has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling it with liability. 3. The appellants-claimants in FAO No. 8 of 2010 have sought enhancement of the compensation and have not disputed other issues. BRIEF FACTS: 4. Though the facts are not in dispute, but I deem it proper to give brief resume of the case herein. 5. The claimants, being victims of the vehicular accident, filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition, on the ground that driver Sukh Dev has driven truck bearing registration No. HP-67-0686, rashly and negligently, on 6th February, 2007, at about 3.00 p.m., at Village Sadhu Chak (Bankhandi), Hoshiarpur Road, knocked down Shri Sanjay Kumar who sustained injuries, was taken to District Hospital, Una; was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, succumbed to the injuries on 7th February, 2007; the deceased was the only bread-earner; the claimants were dependants upon him and the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month from all sources. 6. The owner-insured, the driver and the insurer-United India Insurance Company Limited resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in the memo of objections. 7. The following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 11.10.2007 :- “1. Whether Sanjay Kumar Jassal died in the motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the vehicle namely Truck Tipper (No. HP-67-0686) by Sukhdev (respondent No. 1) on February 6, 2007? ….OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? Whether Sanjay Kumar Jassal died in the motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the vehicle namely Truck Tipper (No. HP-67-0686) by Sukhdev (respondent No. 1) on February 6, 2007? ….OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? .…OPP 3. Whether the respondent 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the type of vehicle (Truck-Tipper) involved in the accident? . ….OPR-3 4. Whether the Truck Tipper in question was being used in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? . ….OPR-3 5. Relief.” 8. Claimants have examined six witnesses and claimant Smt. Sanjana Kumari also appeared in the witness box. The driver and the owner also appeared in the witness box. The insurer has examined Shri J.S. Guleria, in support of its defence. 9. The Tribunal, after examining the pleadings and scanning the evidence on record, held that the claimants have proved that the driver, namely, Sukh Dev had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently on 6.2.2007 at about 3.00 p.m., at Village Sadhu Chak (Bankhandi), Hoshiarpur Road, had knocked down Sanjay Kumar, who suffered multiple injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 7.2.2007 at PGI, Chandigarh. There is no dispute about the said issue. Accordingly, the findings returned on this issue are upheld. 10. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issue No. 3. Issue No. 3. 11. The appellant-insurer had to discharge the onus to prove this issue. It has not led any evidence to prove that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant point of time, i.e. on the date of the accident. On the other hand, the driver appeared in the witness box as RW-1 and stated that he was having valid and effective driving licence. Accordingly, the findings returned on this issue are upheld. Issues No. 2 & 4 12. The insurer-Insurance Company has taken a plea that though the cover note was issued but no premium was deposited with the insurance company. While going through the cover note Mark-D, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that it was issued on 14.8.2006 at 11.15 a.m. and was valid upto 13.8.2007. The premium amount was fixed as Rs.7,332/-. The insurer-Insurance Company has taken a plea that though the cover note was issued but no premium was deposited with the insurance company. While going through the cover note Mark-D, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that it was issued on 14.8.2006 at 11.15 a.m. and was valid upto 13.8.2007. The premium amount was fixed as Rs.7,332/-. This cover note has not been cancelled by the insurer till the occurrence of the accident, i.e. 6.2.2007 or till its expiry date i.e. 13.8.2007. They have taken a plea that the cover note was issued without depositing the premium money by the agent. 13. The insurer has examined Shri J.S. Guleria, who has admitted that the insurance company had issued the insurance cover note to their agent, but the said agent had not deposited the premium amount with the insurance company. It was for the insurer to take action against the agent, if he has committed any breach or fraud. No action was taken against the agent. It is the master who is vicariously liable in terms of the various provisions of law. However, the Tribunal has discussed this issue at length and held the insurance company liable. 14. 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 Section 147 to 149 of the MV Act, hereinafter referred to as “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. 15. In terms of the aforesaid Section, the insurer had to issue notice intimating the insured that the cover note has been cancelled. Neither the cover note was cancelled nor any intimation was given to this effect. 16. The Apex Court in a case titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Rula and others, reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1082, has 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. 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.” 17. 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.” 18. 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.” 19. I have also 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 and as Chief Justice in FAO No. 35 of 2009, titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Smt. Anjana Sharma & others alongwith another connected matter, decided on 4th July, 2004. 20. Until and unless notice is issued by the insurer and is served upon the insured, the contract subsists and the insurer is liable. 21. The insurer is also caught by its own act i.e. by its pleadings. In one breath, it has stated that it cannot be saddled the liability for the reason that the premium was not deposited, but in the same breath, it has stated that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and to this effect, issue No. 4 has been framed. It is apt to reproduce para 8 of the preliminary submissions of the reply filed by the Insurance Company:- “8. That vehicle in question was being plied against terms and conditions specified in the insurance policy.” Thus, the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the insurer on this count are not tenable, hence rejected. The learned Tribunal has rightly decided issue No. 4. Accordingly, the findings returned on this issue are upheld. 22. Learned Counsel for the insurer stated at the Bar that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure being CMP No. 444 of 2009 has been filed on behalf of the insurance company, for leading additional evidence. Accordingly, the findings returned on this issue are upheld. 22. Learned Counsel for the insurer stated at the Bar that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure being CMP No. 444 of 2009 has been filed on behalf of the insurance company, for leading additional evidence. Shri J.S. Guleria, Branch Manger, United India Insurance Company, while appearing as RW-2, has specifically stated that the insurance cover note was issued through their agent, but the said agent did not deposit the premium amount with the insurance company. It is a dispute between the master and the agent, which is not subject matter of the claim petitions/appeals in hand. The insurer-Insurance Company is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy. Having glance to the aforesaid discussion, the application merits to be rejected. Rejected as such. 23. Now coming to issue No. 2, the Tribunal after applying the multiplier of ‘14’ has rightly assessed the loss of dependency and awarded compensation, which cannot be said to be inadequate. Accordingly, the findings returned on this issue are also upheld. 24. Having said so, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the adequate and just compensation and saddled the insurer-United Insurance Company with liability and both these appeals merit to be dismissed; are dismissed as such and the impugned award is upheld accordingly. 25. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award. 26. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on the record.