JUDGMENT B. Rath, J. - This appeal involves a challenge to the impugned judgment and award dated 16.12.2013 passed in M.A.C. Case No.100/81 of 2010-12 by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T., Balangir directing the Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs.2,27,400/- to the Claimantsrespondents within three months along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application, i.e., 21.06.2010 till the actual payment is made. 2. Short background involving the above Motor Accident Claim Case is that the Claimant-Respondent Nos.1 to 6 filed application vide M.A.C. Case No.100/81 of 2010-12 bringing in the facts that on 29.04.2010 at about 5.15 p.m. while the deceased was coming to Rugudikhal Chowk for supply of milk to the hoteliers by his bicycle, the offending vehicle bearing registration No.CG-12C-4111 ran from Balangir side towards Bargarh in a very rash and negligent manner, dashed him near village- Budhipadar on N.H-201, for which the deceased sustained severe bleeding injury on his head and succumbed to the injury sustained at the spot. It is claimed that at the time of death of the deceased he was a bachelor and he was working as a milkman and was earning a sum of Rs.6000/- per month. It is in the premises of rash and negligent driving by the offending vehicle and death involving the offending vehicle, the Claimants-respondent Nos.1 to 6 claimed financial compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- involving the Insurance Company and bringing a case involving an insured vehicle. On their appearance, the Insurance Company in filing the written statement vehemently challenged the liability aspect on the premises that grant of policy was subject to realization of the premium amount. It was the specific case of the Insurance Company, the appellant herein was that the premium involving the Insurance was received by way of cheque bearing No.569236 drawn on State Bank of India, Balco Township, dated 25.03.2010 and the same was presented for encasment, but it was dishonoured as per the intimation of the Bank vide letter dated 10.04.2010. On the premises of dishonour of the cheque submitted by the policy holder, the Insurance Company prayed the lower Court for exonerating the Insurance Company from liability. On conclusion of the argument, the learned Additional District Judge-cum-MACT, Balangir however passed an award in favour of the Claimants-Respondents fixing quantum as well as with saddling of liability on the appellants, the Insurance Company. 3. On conclusion of the argument, the learned Additional District Judge-cum-MACT, Balangir however passed an award in favour of the Claimants-Respondents fixing quantum as well as with saddling of liability on the appellants, the Insurance Company. 3. On reiteration of the stand taken in the Court below, Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-Insurance Company submitted that there has been no proper consideration of the materials available on record and the impugned award even stands contrary to the materials available on record as well as the pleadings of the parties and the award should be interfered on the ground of perversity. 4. In spite of appearance of a set of counsel on behalf of the respondent nos.2 to 6, nobody is present in Court at the time of hearing. There is also no appearance on behalf of the other respondents in spite of sufficient of notice and call as well. 5. Considering the submissions of Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants Insurance Company and on perusal of the grounds stated in the Memorandum of Appeal as well as the stand taken before the lower Court appearing in paragraph-4 of the impugned award and also the contents of Exts.A, B, C and D, i.e., the materials documents produced by the appellants-Insurance Company to establish that they have no liability involving the accident, this Court finds, the date of accident remain 29.04.2010 whereas cheque for insurance of the vehicle was submitted on 25.03.2010 and cheque got bounced for no sufficient fund. Intimation in this regard to all concerned was given by the Bank on 10.04.2010 with intimation of dishonor to both the owner as well as the Banker. This Court, accordingly finds, by the date of accident, there was no valid policy involving the offending vehicle. There is clear material establishing that the intimation of lapse of policy was also served on the Insurer well before the accident took place. This Court thus finds, the findings of the Court below remained contrary to the materials available on record. It is at this stage, this Court taking into account a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vrs. Laxamamma and others, (2012) 3 TAC 8 (S.C.), this Court finds, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph-19 observed as follows:- "19. It is at this stage, this Court taking into account a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vrs. Laxamamma and others, (2012) 3 TAC 8 (S.C.), this Court finds, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph-19 observed as follows:- "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 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." Decision referred to hereinabove has clear application to the case of the Award and thus making the impugned award so far fixation of liability on the Insurance Company becomes bad in law. 6. It is at this stage, since this Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company only challenging the liability aspect, this Court finding no case involving the Insurance Company, interferes in the impugned award to the extent of liability only and in the process while holding that the fixation of liability by the lower Court on the appellants-Insurance Company as bad, directs the owner for making over the compensation amount and also to comply other terms and conditions in the impugned award. 7. This Appeal stands allowed in part with modification of the Award involved herein. The award so far it relates to entitlement and quantum is confirmed. For the modification of the Award by this Court, the modified award will be satisfied by the owner involved. So far other terms and conditions in the impugned award are maintained. 7. This Appeal stands allowed in part with modification of the Award involved herein. The award so far it relates to entitlement and quantum is confirmed. For the modification of the Award by this Court, the modified award will be satisfied by the owner involved. So far other terms and conditions in the impugned award are maintained. 8. Appeal succeeds, but to the extent indicated hereinabove. No costs.