JUDGMENT : Abdullah Gulamahmed Uraizee, J. 1. The appellant-Insurance Company has questioned the judgment and award dated 23.08.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara passed in MACP No. 1444 of 2005 whereby and where under the appellant and respondents No. 6 and 7 are directed to pay compensation to respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (original-claimants). 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the deceased Ishwarbhai Shanabhai Solanki was passed by the fertilizer main gate on foot at about 1.00 a.m. on 21.08.2005. At that time, respondent No. 6 herein came with tanker bearing registration No. GJ-6-Y-7776 from Ahmedabad side at very high and excessive speed and rash and negligent manner and came on to service road after jumping the divider to dash with the deceased. The deceased fetal injuries and breath his last in assessed hospital, Vadodara. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein being legal heirs and representatives of the deceased referred MACP No. 1444 of 2005 in the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Vadodara to recover Rs. 6 lakhs as compensation from the appellant and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 herein. The appellant-Insurance Company are before the Tribunal to exonerate from its liability on account of that the insurance policy under which the offending tanker was covered, was cancelled on account of dishonoured of cheque of premium given by the respondent No. 7 herein the owner of the tanker. The Tribunal did not accept the contention of the appellant-Insurance Company and saddled the liability of payment of compensation on the appellant alongwith respondent Nos. 6 and 7. 3. I have heard Mr. Palak H. Thakkar, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. MTM Hakim, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. There is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 and 7. 4. Mr. Palak H. Thakkar, learned advocate for the appellant submits that the policy at Exh. 50 was issued on the basis of cheque of premium given by respondent No. 7 herein, which cheque was dishonoured on 15.02.2005. Thereafter, the appellant had cancelled Exh. 50 insurance policy under intimation to the RTO, Nadiad and respondent No. 7 by registered post. It is therefore his submission that the Exh. 50 insurance policy had ceased to exists and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have saddle the liability of payment of compensation on the shoulders of the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant had cancelled Exh. 50 insurance policy under intimation to the RTO, Nadiad and respondent No. 7 by registered post. It is therefore his submission that the Exh. 50 insurance policy had ceased to exists and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have saddle the liability of payment of compensation on the shoulders of the appellant. He also submits that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Subhadraben Wd/o Pratapsinh Punjaji Ramaji Parmar & 4 rendered in 2016 ACJ 2701, the appellant was not obligate to intimate the RTO about the cancellation of policy. Relying upon the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Geeta, rendered in 2012 (0) AIJ-DL 1350058, and the decision of Madras High court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Azhagusumathi rendered in 2014 (0) AIJ-TN 1267025, he submits that in view of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act that the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. 5. He therefore submits that the respondent No. 7 herein was duly intimated by registered post about the cancellation of the policy as is apparent from Exh. 56 letter and Exh. 57 photocopy of the extract of the register of postal department. He further submits that even otherwise it is manifest from the conduct of respondent No. 7 that he had the knowledge of cancellation of Exh. 50 policy as he submitted a fresh proposal on 02.09.2005 for a fresh policy by paying premium in cash after the accident had happened on 21.08.2005. He therefore urges that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant-Insurance Company may be exonerated from its liability of payment of compensation by modifying the impugned judgment and award. 6. Per contra, Mr. MTM Hakim, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 has supported the judgment and award of the Tribunal. He submits that the Tribunal has considered the evidence adduced by the appellant in detail and by assigning cogent reasons, has recorded the findings that the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award. 6. Per contra, Mr. MTM Hakim, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 has supported the judgment and award of the Tribunal. He submits that the Tribunal has considered the evidence adduced by the appellant in detail and by assigning cogent reasons, has recorded the findings that the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Laxmamma and others rendered in (2012) 5 SCC 234 , he submits that the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award unless, the intimation of cancellation of the policy had reached insured before the accident. According to his submissions, the evidence produced by the appellant does not indicate that Exh. 56 intimation has reached to respondent No. 7 and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the liability of the payment of compensation of the appellant. He further submits that the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act can be raised only if, the notice is dispatched at the correct address as has been held by the Bombay High Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Gangadhar Gendrao Patankar rendered in 2015 (0) AIJ-MH 173498, he therefore urges that the appeal may be dismissed. 7. The solitary question which is required to be addressed to in this appeal is whether the respondent No. 7 herein, who is the owner of the offending vehicle involved in the accident, was duly intimated about the cancellation of Exh. 50 insurance policy on the ground of dishonoured of cheque of premium. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited V/s. Laxmamma & Others (Supra) has summed up the legal position in respect of the question involved in this appeal under the following terms: "26. 50 insurance policy on the ground of dishonoured of cheque of premium. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited V/s. Laxmamma & Others (Supra) has summed up the legal position in respect of the question involved in this appeal under the following terms: "26. In our view, the legal position is this: where the policy of insurance is issued by an authorised insurer on receipt of cheque towards the payment of premium and such a cheque is returned dishonoured, the liability of the authorised insurer to indemnify the third parties in respect of the liability which that policy covered subsists and it has to satisfy the award of compensation by reason of the provisions of Sections 147(5) and 149(1) of the MV Act unless the policy of insurance is cancelled by the authorised 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 authorised insurer to cover a vehicle on receipt of the cheque paid towards premium and the cheque gets dishonoured 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." 9. The undisputed facts are that the Exh. 50 insurance policy was issued on the basis of cheque given by the respondent No. 7. The cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the account of respondent No. 7 and therefore, Exh. 50 insurance policy was cancelled and RTO, Nadiad was duly intimated on 15.02.2005. According to the appellant, insurance company has also intimated respondent No. 7 by letter dated 16.02.2005. The accident causing death of Ishwarbhai Shanabhai Solanki happened on 21.08.2005 and therefore, on 02.09.2005, the respondent No. 7 submitted a fresh proposal with the appellant-Insurance Company for a fresh insurance policy. 10. In the background of aforesaid admitted factual scenario, the appellant-Insurance Company, as per the settled legal preposition of law, avoid its liability of satisfying the impugned judgment and award if, it can successfully demonstrate that the intimation of the cancellation of Exh. 50 insurance policy was given and it had reached the respondent No. 7 before happening of the accident. In the background of aforesaid admitted factual scenario, the appellant-Insurance Company, as per the settled legal preposition of law, avoid its liability of satisfying the impugned judgment and award if, it can successfully demonstrate that the intimation of the cancellation of Exh. 50 insurance policy was given and it had reached the respondent No. 7 before happening of the accident. 11. The learned advocate Mr. Palak Thakkar for appellant has placed heavy reliance on Exh. 56 letter dated 16.02.2005 addressed to respondent No. 7 and the extract of the register dated 25.02.2005 of the postal department to contend that the insurer i.e. respondent No. 7 was duly intimated that Exh. 50 insurance policy was cancelled before the occurrence of the accident. He further tries to submit that in view of Section 27 of General Clauses Act and the decisions of Delhi High Court and the Madras High Court that once the registered parcel is dispatched by properly addressing and prepaying the parcel, the service thereof shall be deemed to have been effected. I am not inclined to accept these submissions. It emerges that the appellant-Insurance Company had addressed a letter dated 16.02.2005 to respondent No. 7 to intimate the cancellation of Exh. 50 insurance policy. An attempt is made to demonstrate that it was sent by registered post to the respondent No. 7 for which heavy reliance is placed on Exh. 57 extract of register of postal department. I think this is a feeble attempt. It is really very difficult to fathom in the first place as to why the appellant-insurance policy waited for nearly 9 days to dispatch the letter, if at all it was ready by the appellant. The perusal of Exh. 57 register also reveals that registered parcel was sent to one Mr. N.J. Zala whereas the initial of respondent No. 7 is of S.G. Zala. The perusal of Exh. 57 register also reveals that registered parcel was sent to one Mr. N.J. Zala whereas the initial of respondent No. 7 is of S.G. Zala. The Madras High Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Azhagusumathi (Supra), the Delhi High Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Geeta (Supra) and the Bombay High Court in the case of National Insurance Limited Versus Gangadhar Gendrao Patankar (Supra) have in terms and in my opinion correctly held that for the purpose of deemed service of notice under the provisions of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, the foremost requirements is that the registered parcel must have been sent at the correct address. In my opinion, the correct address would also include to the correct person. The Exh. 57 extract of register in first place does not reveal at what address the registered parcel was sent. To put in other words, whether the registered parcel was sent at the address of the respondent No. 7 or not, is not forthwith coming from Exh. 57. Moreover, it is very vividly clear that the proposal was sent to one N.J. Zala whereas initial of respondent No. 7 would be S.G. Zala. I am therefore of the opinion that the appellant-Insurance Company has made unsuccessful attempt to establish on record that the respondent No. 7 was intimated about the cancellation of Exh. 50 insurance policy before the occurrence of the accident. The learned Tribunal has bare thread analyzed the evidence in this regard and has rightly recorded the conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove that the cancellation of Exh. 50 Insurance-Policy was intimated to respondent No. 7 before the occurrence of the accident. 12. It is sought to be contended that it can be deduced from the conduct of the respondent No. 7 that he had the knowledge of cancellation of the Exh. 50 insurance policy in as much as he submitted a fresh proposal for insurance of the offending vehicle on 02.09.2005 by paying premium in cash after the occurrence of accident on 21.08.2005. The inaction on the part of respondent No. 7 for about eight months after the dishonoured of cheque in the month of February, 2005 and getting a fresh policy after the accident. The inaction on the part of respondent No. 7 for about eight months after the dishonoured of cheque in the month of February, 2005 and getting a fresh policy after the accident. Again, be the ground to presume that he had the knowledge of cancellation of insurance policy since the cheque which was dishonoured was drawn by the respondent No. 7 on his bank. It can very well be said that he had the knowledge of dishonoured of cheque but, dishonoured of cheque is one thing and the knowledge that Exh. 50 policy was cancelled on account of dishonoured of cheque is back, is another thing. The knowledge of dishonour of cheque ipso facto cannot be equated with the knowledge about the cancellation of Exh. 50 policy. 13. The Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Inderjit Kaur and others (Supra) has held as under: 9. Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 (for short "the Insurance Act") provides as under: "64-VB. No risk to be assumed unless premium is received in advance-(1) No insurer shall assume any risk in India in respect of any insurance business on which premium is not ordinarily payable outside India unless and until the premium payable is received by him or is guaranteed to be paid by such person in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed or unless and until deposit of such amount as may be prescribed, is made in advance in the prescribed manner. (2) For the purposes of this section, in the case of risks for which premium can be ascertained in advance, the risk may be assumed not earlier than the date on which the premium has been paid in cash or by cheque to the insurer. Explanation.- Where the premium is tendered by postal money order or cheque sent by post, the risk may be assumed on the date on which the money order is booked or the cheque is posted, as the case may be. Explanation.- Where the premium is tendered by postal money order or cheque sent by post, the risk may be assumed on the date on which the money order is booked or the cheque is posted, as the case may be. (3) Any refund of premium which may become due to an insured on account of cancellation of a policy or alteration in its terms and conditions or otherwise shall be paid by the insurer directly to the insured by a crossed or order cheque or by postal money order and a proper receipt shall be obtained by the insurer from the insured, and such refund shall in no case be credited to the account of the agent. (4) where an insurance agent collects a premium on a policy of insurance on behalf on an insurer, he shall deposit with, or despatch by post to, the insurer, the premium so collected in full without deduction of his commission within twenty-four hours of the collection excluding bank and postal holidays. (5) The Central Government may, by rules, relax the requirements of sub-section (1) in respect of particular categories of insurance policies. (6) The authority may, from time to time, specify, by the regulations made by it, the manner of receipt of premium by the insurer." 14. It is thus, clear that the appellant had issued Exh. 50 Insurance Policy before clearing of the cheque and receipt of the premium contrary to the provisions of Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act. Moreover, the appellant is not able to demonstrate that the cancellation of Exh. 50 Policy was intimated and that intimation had reached respondent No. 7 before happening of the accident. I am therefore of the opinion that the interest of the claimants who are third parties, cannot be jeopardize on account of default on the part of the appellant and they cannot be deprived of the compensation awarded to them under the impugned judgment and award. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is hereby dismissed with a liberty in favour of the appellant-Insurance Company to recover the awarded compensation from respondent No. 7 by instituting independent proceedings and establishing that the intimation of cancellation of insurance policy had reached respondent No. 7. 16. Parties are leave to bare their own cost. 17. Records and Proceedings be remitted to the Tribunal forthwith. Appeal Dismissed