JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral) This appeal is directed against the award dated 25th March, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in Claim Petition No. 107/2005, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,82,380/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned award’). 2. The claimant, owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far it relates to them. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant-insurer argued that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in fastening it with liability and directing it to satisfy the award. 4. The argument of the learned Counsel is not tenable for the following reason. 5. The aim and object of granting compensation, is social one, is to be granted, as early as possible, in order to save claimants from social evils. The claimant is the third party, the rights of the third party cannot be defeated and they cannot be made to suffer. 6. The mandate of Sections 146, 147 and 149 of the MV Act is to protect the rights of third parties and that is why, compulsory duty has been imposed on the owners to get the vehicles insured and claim of third parties is to be protected. 7. The Apex Court has discussed the said principle in a case titled as S. Iyyappan Versus United India Insurance Company Limited and another, reported in (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 62. It is apt to reproduce para 16 of the aforesaid judgment herein: "16. The heading "Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third Party Risks" given in Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Chapter VIII of 1939 Act) itself shows the intention of the legislature to make third party insurance compulsory and to ensure that the victims of accident arising out of use of motor vehicles would be able to get compensation for the death or injuries suffered. The provision has been inserted in order to protect the persons travelling in vehicles or using the road from the risk attendant upon the user of the motor vehicles on the road. The provision has been inserted in order to protect the persons travelling in vehicles or using the road from the risk attendant upon the user of the motor vehicles on the road. To overcome this ugly situation, the legislature has made it obligatory that no motor vehicle shall be used unless a third party insurance is in force." 8. It is admitted that the vehicle was insured, but the cheque has bounced. 9. 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. 10. 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. 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.” 11. The matter again came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Deddappa & Ors. versus The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. 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.” 11. 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. 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.” 12. In the case titled as United India Insurance Co. We direct accordingly.” 12. 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.” 13. The same view has been taken by this Court in the cases titled as M/s New Prem Bus Service versus Laxman Singh & another, reported in Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 579, and United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Sanjana Kumari & others, reported in Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 1140. 14. Viewed thus, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with liability and directed it to satisfy the award with right of recovery. 15. Having glance of the above discussions, the impugned award is to be upheld and the appeal merits to be dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 16. The Registry is directed to release the entire amount in favour of the claimant, strictly in terms of conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque or by depositing it in his account. 17. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 16. The Registry is directed to release the entire amount in favour of the claimant, strictly in terms of conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque or by depositing it in his account. 17. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.