JUDGMENT S.G. Pandit, J. - The insurance company is before this Court in this appeal assailing the liability fastened on it under the judgment and award dated 24.09.2009 passed in M.V.C. No.203/2002 on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Fast Track Court-I at Koppal (for short 'the Tribunal'), and praying for absolving it from the liability to pay the compensation. 2. The appellant-insurance company was respondent No.2, respondent No.1 was the claimant and respondent No.2, owner of the truck, was respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. 3. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation for the accidental death of one Kamalamma in a road traffic accident. It is stated that on 15.06.2002 when Kamalamma was going for nature call, a lorry bearing registration No.KA- 30/3283 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to Kamalamma, due to which she died on the spot. It is contended that the deceased Kamalamma was aged 42 years and was earning Rs.3,500/- per month. 4. On issuance of notice, respondent No.1 appeared and filed written statement denying the petition averments. Respondent No.1 also stated that as on the date of the accident, the vehicle was covered under the insurance policy issued by respondent No.2- insurance company. Respondent No.2-insurance company also appeared and filed its written statement. It denied the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Further, the insurance company specifically contended that there was no insurance policy issued to the vehicle in question as on the date of the accident. The cheque issued by the owner towards payment of the premium was dishonoured and hence, the insurance company had cancelled the policy and the same was intimated to the owner. 5. The claimants, in support of their case, got examined P.W.1 and two more witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 apart from marking documents as Exs.P.1 to P.11. Respondent No.2-insurance company examined R.W.1 and marked documents as Exs.R.1 to R.5. The Tribunal, on consideration of the entire material on record allowed the claim petition in part granting compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, and fastened the liability to pay the compensation on respondent No.2-insurance company. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company is before this Court in this appeal. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company is before this Court in this appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellantinsurance company, the learned counsel for respondent No.1-claimant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2-owner of the lorry. 7. The learned counsel for the appellantinsurance company would submit that, as on the date of the accident, the policy was not in existence as the same was cancelled. It is his submission that the owner of the lorry had issued a cheque towards payment of premium and the same was dishonoured by memo dated 23.01.2002 and subsequently, as per Ex.R.4, intimation was sent to the owner of the lorry regarding cancellation of the policy. Therefore, it is his submission that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation since there was no contract. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Daddappa and others Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd, (2008) ACJ 581 . Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal. 8. The learned counsel for respondent No.2- owner of the lorry submits that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation directing the insurance company to pay the compensation and thereafter to recover the same from the owner of the lorry. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 9. The learned counsel for respondent No.1- claimant also would support the judgment and award of the Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 10. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, the only point that falls for consideration is, Whether the Tribunal is justified in directing the insurance company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the lorry? 11. The answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons: (a) The accident which had taken place on 15.06.2002 involving lorry bearing registration No.KA- 30/3283 and the accidental death of Kamalamma is not in dispute in this appeal. The insurance company is before this Court aggrieved by fastening of the liability on it. 11. The answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons: (a) The accident which had taken place on 15.06.2002 involving lorry bearing registration No.KA- 30/3283 and the accidental death of Kamalamma is not in dispute in this appeal. The insurance company is before this Court aggrieved by fastening of the liability on it. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no contract of insurance between the appellant-insurance company and the respondentowner of the lorry since the cheque issued by the owner towards payment of premium was dishonoured and the owner was intimated about the dishonour of cheque and cancellation of the policy. The owner of the lorry, respondent No.2, herein had issued a cheque dated 10.01.2002 towards premium amount, but the same was dishonoured on 22.01.2002. The cheque return memo is marked as Ex.R.3. On receipt of the cheque return memo, the insurance company issued a notice, which is marked as Ex.R.4, intimating the owner of the vehicle that the policy is cancelled due to dishonour of the cheque. Ex.R.5 is the postal receipt for having intimated the owner. In that view of the matter there was no contract of insurance existing between the insurance company and the owner of the lorry as on the date of the accident. The accident had taken place four months after the dishonour of the cheque i.e., on 15.06.2002. The insurance company under Ex.R4, dated 24.01.2002, had intimated the owner regarding cancellation of the policy. (b) The legal position is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Daddappa's case (supra), wherein under similar set of facts, the Hon'ble Apex Court, at para No.26, has held as under: "26. We are not oblivious of the distinction between the statutory liability of the insurance company vis- -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." 12. 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." 12. By following the principles laid down in the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court (Daddappa's case), that portion of the judgment of the Tribunal directing the insurance company to pay the compensation, at the first instance, and to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, is set aside and the appellant is absolved of its liability. It is held that respondent No.2 herein i.e., the owner of the lorry, is liable to pay the entire compensation. The appeal of the insurance company is allowed in part to the extent stated above. The amount in deposit be refunded to the appellant-insurance company.