ORDER : Heard the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the Award dated 08.03.2016 passed by the District Judge-VI-cum-MACT, Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 295/2013 whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal has been pleased to allow the claim petition of the applicants and claimant was awarded a sum of Rs. 2,02,000/- as compensation and the appellant was directed to pay the same along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of claim within a period one month from the date of order. It is further held that insurance company-appellant is entitled to recover the said amount from the O.P. No.1-respondent No.2 herein, the owner of the offending vehicle. 3. As per the claim application factual matrix is that the claimant-respondent No.1 is the legal heir of the deceased Rajendra Mandal being Son. On 23.11.2013 at about 10:00 am, Rajendra Mandal after crossing G.T. Road was going towards Durga Mandir but suddently, a truck bearing Regn. No. WB 11B 2585 came very rashly and negligently from the side of Barwadda and dashed Rajendra Mandal as a result of which, he fell down and wheel of the truck ran over the body of Rajendra Mandal. His body was divided into several parts and he died on the spot. 4. On the basis of Fardbayan of informant Anandi Mandal, who happens to be the son of the deceased Rajendra Mandal, Rajganj P.S. Case No. 84/2013 dated 23.11.2013 u/S 279/304 (A) IPC was registered against the driver of Truck bearing Regn. No. WB 11 B 2585. Notices were served upon both the opposite parties in which Opposite Party No.1 /respondent No.1/Owner of the offending truck was debarred from filing written statement vide order dated 26.02.2015 and opposite party No.2-Insurance Company/appellant filed his written statement and denied the same and stated that he was not liable for any payment. 5. The parties appeared before the Tribunal and were heard. After examining the witnesses and perusing the evidences on record, the learned Tribunal framed the followings issues:- (I) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (II) Is there any cause of action for the present suit ? (III) Whether deceased Rajendra Mandal died in motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck bearing Regn. No. WB 11 B 2585 ? (IV) Whether the driver of the truck bearing Regn. (II) Is there any cause of action for the present suit ? (III) Whether deceased Rajendra Mandal died in motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck bearing Regn. No. WB 11 B 2585 ? (IV) Whether the driver of the truck bearing Regn. No. WB 11 B 2585 had a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident ? (V) Is the plaintiff entitled to compensation, and if so, what amount and from whom ? (VI) To what relief and reliefs if any claimant is entitled ? 6. Learned Tribunal after perusal of the records and examining the evidences and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, came to a finding that claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 2,02,000/- as compensation and the appellant was directed to pay the same along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of claim within a period of one month from the date of order. Taking into consideration, stand of the Insurance Company that Insurance Company was not liable as the cheque issued against premium itself was dishonoured, learned Tribunal took a decision that in view of catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, at first instance the Insurance Company-appellant shall pay the compensation amount and later on recover the same from the owner-respondent No.2 in view of ratio of pay and recovery, in accordance with law. 7. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-SBI Insurance Company assails the impugned Award dated 08th March, 2016 on the ground that Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount as already the cheque against the premium was dishonoured and information in this regard was given to the insured. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned Award is illegal, perverse and bad in law. Learned counsel places heavy reliance upon a reported judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Laxmamma & Ors., reported (2012) 5 SCC 234 . Para 26 of which is reproduced hereinbelow : 26. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned Award is illegal, perverse and bad in law. Learned counsel places heavy reliance upon a reported judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Laxmamma & Ors., reported (2012) 5 SCC 234 . Para 26 of which is reproduced hereinbelow : 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 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. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Pratush Lala, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 emphatically argues that in any how of the matter Insurance Company cannot be absolved from the compensation amount. The claim of the claimant cannot be brushed aside and the Tribunal has rightly saddled the Insurance Company with the compensation amount with a liberty to recover the same from the owner in the accordance with law. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 places heavy reliance on the reported judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Inderjit Kaur & Ors., reported in (1998) 1 SCC 371 . 9. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent No.2-owner in spite of Vakalatnama. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 places heavy reliance on the reported judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Inderjit Kaur & Ors., reported in (1998) 1 SCC 371 . 9. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent No.2-owner in spite of Vakalatnama. 10. In view of the submissions of the parties and on perusal of the records and case laws relied upon by the parties, this Court is of the opinion that Insurance Company-appellant cannot be absolved from the compensation amount. The reliance of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company on para 26 of the case United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Laxmamma and Ors. (supra) is of no help to him as in the same judgment in para 24, the Hon’ble Apex Court has made certain observation which is reproduced hereinbelow : 24. We find it hard to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the insurer that the three Judge Bench decision in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Inderjit Kaur, reported in (1998) 1 SCC 371 has been diluted by the subsequent decisions in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Seema Malhotra, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 151 and Deddappa Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 517. Seema Malhotra (supra) and Deddappa (supra) turned on the facts obtaining therein. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court has clarified that at the first instance even if cheque was dishonoured, insurer is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant and later on recovered from the owner. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Inderjit Kaur & Ors., reported in (1998) 1 SCC 371 in para 9 has held as under :- “9. We have, therefore, this position. Despite the bar created by Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, the appellant, an authorised insurer, issued a policy of insurance to cover the bus without receiving the premium therefor. Ltd. Vs. Inderjit Kaur & Ors., reported in (1998) 1 SCC 371 in para 9 has held as under :- “9. We have, therefore, this position. Despite the bar created by Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, the appellant, an authorised insurer, issued a policy of insurance to cover the bus without receiving the premium therefor. By reason of the provisions of Sections 147 (5) and 149 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant became liable to indemnify third parties in respect of the liability which that policy covered and to satisfy awards of compensation in respect thereof notwithstanding its entitlement (upon which we do not express any opinion) to avoid or cancel the policy for the reason that the cheque issued in payment of the premium thereon had not been honoured.” 12. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rula & Ors., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 195 same view has been reiterated. Paras 10 to 12 are reproduced hereinbelow: 10. The contract of insurance in respect of motor vehicles has, therefore, to be construed in the light of the above provisions. Section 146(1) contains a prohibition on the use of the motor vehicles without an insurance policy having been taken in accordance with Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act. The manifest object of this provision is to ensure that the third party, who suffers injuries due to the use of the motor vehicle, may be able to get damages from the owner of the vehicle and recoverability of the damages may not depend on the financial condition or solvency of the driver of the vehicle who had caused the injuries. 11. Thus, any contract of insurance under Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 contemplates a third party who is not a signatory or a party to the contract of insurance but is, nevertheless, protected by such contract. As pointed out by this Court in New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pessumal Dhanamal Aswani, the rights of the third party to get indemnified can be exercised only against the insurer of the vehicle. It is thus clear that the third party is not concerned and does not come into the picture at all in the matter of payment of premium. Ltd. v. Pessumal Dhanamal Aswani, the rights of the third party to get indemnified can be exercised only against the insurer of the vehicle. It is thus clear that the third party is not concerned and does not come into the picture at all in the matter of payment of premium. Whether the premium has been paid or not is not the concern of the third party who is concerned with the fact that there was a policy issued in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident and it is on the basis of this policy that the claim can be maintained by the third party against the insurer. 12. It was in the background of the above statutory provisions that the provisions of Section 64-VB, upon which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellant, were considered by this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur reported in (1998) 1 SCC 371 in which it was laid down as under: (SCC p. 375, para 9) “9. We have, therefore, this position. Despite the bar created by Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, the appellant, an authorised insurer, issued a policy of insurance to cover the bus without receiving the premium therefor. By reason of the provisions of Sections 147(5) and 149(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant became liable to indemnify third parties in respect of the liability which that policy covered and to satisfy awards of compensation in respect thereof notwithstanding its entitlement (upon which we do not express any opinion) to avoid or cancel the policy for the reason that the cheque issued in payment of the premium thereon had not been honoured.” 13. As a sequel of the aforesaid observations and ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the case in hand is at similar footing and as such similar theory applies. This Court is in full agreement with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the Insurance Company-appellant is directed to first pay the compensation amount to the claimant/respondent No.1 as per terms and conditions of the Award as awarded by the learned Tribunal, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Insurance Company-appellant is directed to first pay the compensation amount to the claimant/respondent No.1 as per terms and conditions of the Award as awarded by the learned Tribunal, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the learned Tribunal has already observed in para 13 of the impugned award that the compensation amount has to be paid by the Insurance Company-appellant at the first instance with a rider to recover the same as per the policy of pay and recovery, I do not find any interference is required in the impugned Award. 14. Needless to say that if the claimant has received any amount earlier, the same shall be deducted from the total amount to be paid to the claimant as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Insurance Company-appellant is permitted to withdraw statutory amount deposited at the time of filing instant appeal. 15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant Appeal is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. 16. As a sequel to the disposal of the present Appeal, pending I.As. if any, also stand disposed of.