JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the award of Rs.151,500/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty One Thousand Five Hundred Only) passed in M.C.O.P.No.254 of 2012, dated 02.12.2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum Sub Judge, Valliyoor.) 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.254 of 2012, dated 02.12.2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum Subordinate Judge, Valliyoor. 2. The Appellant/insurer, who was made liable along with the owner of a Motorcycle to pay a compensation of Rs.1,51,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, to the claimant, who suffered injuries, consequent to an accident occurred on 30.07.2012 involving the Motor Cycle bearing registration No.TN 02 AL 4546, questioning the liability mulcted on it, more particularly, the application of 'doctrine of pay and recovery. 3. Admittedly, the appellant has not challenged the finding of the tribunal that the Motor-cyclist was responsible for the accident. 4. It is not in dispute that the Motor Cycle bearing registration No.TN 02 AL 4546 is owned by the second respondent/first respondent. According to the claimant, the said two wheeler was insured with the Appellant/second respondent at the time of accident and as such, the Appellant as well as the second respondent are liable to pay the compensation. 5. The main defence of the Appellant/Insurance Company is that the Insurance Policy for the Motor Cycle bearing registration No. TN 02 AL 4546 was issued for the period from 26.04.2012 to 25.04.2013 on receipt of a cheque dated 25.04.2012, that the said cheque when presented for collection was dishonored for want of sufficient funds in the bank account of the owner of the vehicle, that the intimation regarding dishonor of cheque and cancellation of Insurance Policy was given to the owner and the same was also intimated to the concerned Regional Transport Office, that the accident was allegedly occurred on 30.07.2012 two months after the intimation of the cancellation of the Insurance Policy and that therefore, the Policy issued is 'void ab initio' and as such the Appellant/Insurance Company is not liable for the claim. 6. 6. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the tribunal erred in mulcting liability on the Appellant/insurer by invoking the doctrine of pay and recovery, in spite producing the evidence to show that the dishonor cheque, which was issued for payment of premium and consequent cancellation of insurance policy was intimated to the owner of the vehicle and the concerned Regional Transport Office and that therefore, there was no insurance coverage on the date of accident. 7. The learned counsel for the Appellant has relied upon the following decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court; (i) AIR 2000 SCC 1082: New India Assurance Vs. Rula and others; “13. 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 dishonored, 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.” (ii) 2012 AIR SCW 2657: United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Laxmamma and others. “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 payment of premium and such a 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 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 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 cases and the insurance company is not liable to satisfy awards of compensation in respect thereof.” 8. Considering the above decisions, it is very much clear that in order to absolve from the liability, the insurer has to prove that they have sent the mandatory notice to the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, informing about the dishonored cheque and consequent cancellation of the insurance policy and that they are also duty bound to inform the concerned RTO regarding the cancellation of the Insurance Policy. 9. In the case on hand, though the Appellant has alleged that they have complied with all the necessary requirements, in my considered view, they have miserably failed to substantiate the same. No doubt, the insurer has produced and exhibited the Bank Account Copy, Dishonored Cheque, Bank Returned Memo and the Cancelled Policy under Ex.R1 to R4 respectively. Regarding mandatory intimation, they have produced the copy of letter dated 01.06.2012, alleged to have sent to the first respondent/claimant and marking a copy to RTO, Chennai East under Ex.P.5, and they have also enclosed a postal receipt along with the said letter. But in the said postal receipt, the addressee is shown as RTO, Pudukkottai and not as RTO, Chennai East. 10. The Appellant has also not produced the postal acknowledgement cards to show the receipt of the said notice by the second respondent and RTO Chennai East. They have not even produced the postal receipts therefor. The Appellant has only exhibited the copy of the notice sent by their Counsel to the second respondent on 20.03.2014 requiring them to furnish particulars about the policy, driver's license and no doubt, they have produced Ex.R.7/ postal acknowledgement card to show the receipt of the same by the second respondent. They have not even produced the postal receipts therefor. The Appellant has only exhibited the copy of the notice sent by their Counsel to the second respondent on 20.03.2014 requiring them to furnish particulars about the policy, driver's license and no doubt, they have produced Ex.R.7/ postal acknowledgement card to show the receipt of the same by the second respondent. It is evident from the records that the Insurance Policy was issued on 25.04.2012 covering the period between 25.04.2012 and 24.04.2013, that the second respondent has issued the cheque dated 25.04.2012 towards payment of premium and that the same was returned vide memo dated 18.05.2012 on the ground that 'funds insufficient' and the same was intimated to the insurer vide memo dated 31.05.2012. No doubt, Ex.R.5/Letter was allegedly sent on 01.06.2012, but there is absolutely no evidence available to show that the same was sent to the second respondent and RTO Chennai East. 11. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the decision reported in 2015 (1) TN MAC 179 (DB), New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Azhagusumathi and others. “14.............Therefore, the Appellant having intimated the notice of cancellation by Registered Post to the Owner and the RTO, the service of Notice of cancellation can be treated as sufficient and the Insurance Company can take advantage that it has duly intimated to the Owner of the offending vehicle and the Authorities concerned regarding cancellation of Policy due to the dishonour of Cheque. Hence, the Insurer cannot be held liable to indemnify the Owner and it is absolved from liability. The reasoning given and the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard is erroenous. Both the questions are answered accordingly. However, the claim of Third Party cannot be defeated for the self-created predicament of the Insurer in issuing the Policy without actually receiving the premium. Hence, the Insurance Company shall pay the Compensation to the Claimants which it may realise from the Owner of the offending vehicle.” 12. The learned trial Judge has relied on the decision reported in 2014 (1) TN MAC 45 (Delhi), [Usha Agarwal Vs. Pramoth Kumar Gupta and others], with respect to the applicability of the doctrine of pay and recovery. 13. The above decisions are squarely applicable to the present case. The learned trial Judge has relied on the decision reported in 2014 (1) TN MAC 45 (Delhi), [Usha Agarwal Vs. Pramoth Kumar Gupta and others], with respect to the applicability of the doctrine of pay and recovery. 13. The above decisions are squarely applicable to the present case. Admittedly, the first respondent/claimant is a third party to the contract of insurance existed between the owner and the insurer and that the claim of the third party cannot be defeated for the dispute inter se between the owner and the insurer. Considering the above, since the trial Court has rightly applied the doctrine of pay and recovery, there is absolutely nothing to complain. 14. Though the appellant in their memorandum of appeal has taken a plea that the tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so, the extent of such disability, the same was not pressed into service. The appellant has also not disputed the quantum of compensation arrived at by the tribunal. Considering the above, this Court decides that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Considering the other facts, this Court further decides that the parties are to be directed to bear their own costs and the above points are considered accordingly. 15. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.