JUDGMENT : 1. Present First Appeal under Section 173 read with Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed for the purpose of challenging the legality and validity of judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad on 25.11.2010 in M.A.C. Petition No.464 of 2001. 2. Brief facts of the present appeal are as under:- [2.1] On 19.03.2001, the respondent No.3 - original claimant was walking on the side of the road and at that time, the driver of Truck bearing registration No.GJ-1-UU-7595 took the truck in a reverse direction and dashed with the original claimant. As a result of this, the original claimant sustained fracture on left leg, rupture of urethra and the injuries on other parts of the body. At the time when this incident took place, the original claimant was aged about 27 years, doing labour work and he was earning Rs.3500/- per month. As such, the claim petition was filed for the purpose of seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- from the original opponents-company. The said petition was registered as M.A.C. Petition No.464 of 2001 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad. [2.2] Though, the notice was served at Exh.7, the opponent-M/s Mehta Transport Services Pvt. Ltd. did not remain present when the matter was called out and an order was passed on 11.10.2001 and then matter proceeded ex-parte against him. So far as original opponent No.3 is concerned, the New India Assurance Company Limited appeared and filed its written statement at Exh.16 inter alia denying the claim and contents of the petition and thereby had contended that there was no rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle in question and as such requested to dismiss the petition. [2.3] After the pleadings having been completed, the issues were framed at Exh.22 and after considering overall material on record and upon scrutiny of evidence, the learned Tribunal below was pleased to pass an order on 25.11.2010 and partly allowed the claim petition submitted by the original claimant. The operative part thereof thus reads as under: "ORDER: The present petition is partly allowed. The applicant is entitled to get the compensation of Rs.1,17,000/- from the opponents with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization. The operative part thereof thus reads as under: "ORDER: The present petition is partly allowed. The applicant is entitled to get the compensation of Rs.1,17,000/- from the opponents with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization. The interim amount of compensation, if any, paid or deposited under the provisions of no fault liability shall be adjusted in the amount of compensation awarded in the final adjudication. The deficit court fees, if any, be deducted before making payment. Out of the amount payable, the applicant shall invest 70% share in his name in Fixed Deposit Receipt in any nationalised bank of his choice, for a period of six years, and remaining 30% amount shall be paid to him by A/c payee cheque. The applicant will be entitled to receive periodical interest but he will not be entitled to raise loan or advance, without prior permission of this Tribunal. Award be drawn accordingly." [2.4] It is this judgment and order is the subject matter of present appeal filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited. After the present appeal came to be entertained by this Court and necessary orders were passed on Civil Application for Interim Relief and in this background the appeal has come up for consideration today before this Court. 3. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for the appellant - the New India Assurance Company Limited has contended that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is not only unjust and perverse but reflects clear non-application of mind. He has contended that no doubt the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant-company but the policy of offending vehicle could not have been considered inasmuch as the cheque which was given for payment of premium was dishonored on account of insufficient funds on 08.02.2001 and as such, the policy could not have been acknowledged for consideration by the learned Tribunal. It has been submitted vehemently that when the cheque towards the premium has not at all been encashed for want of sufficient fund, the insurance contract could not have been inferred by the learned Tribunal, as a result of this, the order passed by the learned Tribunal on this count alone deserves to be quashed and set aside. It has been submitted vehemently that when the cheque towards the premium has not at all been encashed for want of sufficient fund, the insurance contract could not have been inferred by the learned Tribunal, as a result of this, the order passed by the learned Tribunal on this count alone deserves to be quashed and set aside. It has further been contended that by virtue of the provisions contained under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Insurance Company is not required to issue any notice to RTO informing about cancellation of insurance policy of the offending vehicle involved in the accident and as such, in the absence of any cogent material, the award passed by the Tribunal requires to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate has also submitted that all the cheques which were given, five in numbers, were dishonored on account of insufficient fund and the bank has also informed the same to the Insurance Company on 16.02.2001 and as a consequent of it, the notice for cancellation of policy was communicated to opponent No.2 on 12.03.2001. That being the situation, ignoring this material aspects since the order is passed by the learned Tribunal, the same deserves to be corrected. 3.1 Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate has fairly and candidly submitted that of course no notice was given by the Insurance Company after dishonored of the cheque and further has submitted that in view of principle propounded on the issue and particularly when the award is also not of a huge amount the learned advocate Mr. Nanavati without any much resistance has left it to the discretion of the Court to pass suitable order in the interest of justice. No further submissions have been made. 4. In this case, though served, respondents have chosen not to appear and since the paper-book compilation was ready, the matter is of the year 2011 and upon request of learned advocate for the appellant-Company, the Court proceeded to deal with the appeal finally. 5. Having heard Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, Few circumstances deserve consideration before arriving at a final conclusion in the present proceedings. 6. 5. Having heard Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, Few circumstances deserve consideration before arriving at a final conclusion in the present proceedings. 6. To substantiate and justify the claim, the original claimant has produced certain documentary evidence in the form of complaint at Exh.40, panchnama at Exh.41 as well as affidavit at Exh.29 inter alia stating that the manner of accident and further has also produced a permanent disability certificate at Exh.38 issued by Dr. Shantilal G. Patel. In addition to it, has also submitted the medical bills and receipts at Exhs. 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47 and then has also submitted the written arguments at Exh.62 and after considering these documentary evidence and affidavit including the stand of present appellant - Insurance Company, the learned Tribunal has come to a definite conclusion that the manner in which the accident took place the negligence on the part of driver of truck insured with the present appellant-company is to the extent of 100% and thereby has answered Issue No.1 accordingly. While coming to this conclusion, it has also been noticed by the learned Tribunal that the factum of incident including the date, time, place and involvement of vehicle in question are also established by the claimant and as against this substantive evidence, the opponent-company has not examined the truck driver who can throw some light in the incident in question but the Insurance Company has chosen not to put him in witness box and after considering this material, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion on the issue of negligence of the truck driver to the extent of 100%. 7. In addition to this, with respect to quantification of compensation, the learned Tribunal has considered the medical bills and receipts as also the disability certificate at Exh.38 referred to above and has also considered the factum of admission of claimant for about one and half months and had to undergo operation in Astha Hospital where he admitted as an indoor patient for 30 days and then was required to be admitted in Urology Department at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad for the period from 06.02.2002 to 18.02.2022. While coming to the conclusion of quantum part of compensation, the learned Tribunal has also considered that original claimant has sustained three fractures on left leg and after considering this overall material the injuries and treatment thereof, the learned Tribunal has evaluated the quantum on each head and has arrived at a conclusion that the claimant is entitled to compensation to the extent of Rs.1,17,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till realization. 8. This Court has noticed that, Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate has candidly not concentrated on the quantum part of compensation but has raised an objection with regard to a fact that the cheques related to premium were dishonored and as such contract has not come into existence or at the best in view of the fact that premium amount has not been received by the Insurance Company the policy coverage could not have been considered. Nonetheless, the insurance policy which has been produced at Exh.42 has clearly indicated that when the accident took place on 19.03.2001 the period of policy was subsisting that is from 18.01.2001 to 17.01.2002 and at the relevant date undisputedly the cancellation of policy was not communicated as clearly found from the cross-examination of witness as well and as such on overall consideration, the learned Tribunal has passed an order which cannot be considered in any manner suffers from the vice of either non-application of mind or cannot be said to be perverse in any form and that be so, the overall view which has been taken on the basis of critical analysis of material on record, the same may not be substituted in considered opinion of this Court. 9. So far as the main contention with regard to the liability of Insurance Company on account of dishonored of cheque, the learned advocate Mr. Nanavati has made an attempt to justify his stand but the said stand has not been able to be accepted in view of reasoning given by the learned Tribunal and also the proposition which has been laid down by the decisions which are referred to and relied upon by the learned Tribunal. 10. Nanavati has made an attempt to justify his stand but the said stand has not been able to be accepted in view of reasoning given by the learned Tribunal and also the proposition which has been laid down by the decisions which are referred to and relied upon by the learned Tribunal. 10. In addition to this, while referring to Exh.56 the crossexamination of witness from paper-book compilation at page 233 dated 02.12.2009 it is revealing that whenever any letter is to be sent by the company the same would have an outward number and Exh.58/12 does not indicate any outward number. It has been admitted by this witness that to indicate that letter is sent to policy holder, no slip of R.P.A.D. is placed on record and till date the same has not been produced. As such, the question of sending of intimation itself is not established as is evident from the cross-examination and this deposition has been given by a senior assistant who was working as Administrative Officer from the day of deposition. He has further submitted clearly that the letter dated 12.03.2001, in which, 7 days time was given by Mehta Transport and has fairly admitted that in that letter it has not been informed that from which day the policy stood cancelled. So from overall analysis, it had appeared that the said letter in question whether is received by the said Mehta Transport or nor is not established and as such as a consequent thereof the cancellation of policy also has not been found from which day and the accident took place on 19.03.2001. Hence, there appears to be no error committed by the learned Tribunal in assuming the liability. 11. At this stage, the stand further been examined from the reasons and the discussion which has been taken place while exercising discretion by the Tribunal and as such the Court deems it proper to refer and rely upon few paragraphs of the judgment delivered by the Tribunal below:- 23. The learned advocate for the opponent company has also filed affidavit of Subhash Gopalrao Baheram at ex.56. It is stated in the affidavit that he is serving with insurance company and he is conversant with the facts of the case. The learned advocate for the opponent company has also filed affidavit of Subhash Gopalrao Baheram at ex.56. It is stated in the affidavit that he is serving with insurance company and he is conversant with the facts of the case. It is stated that he has reminded the insured Mehta Transport Services (P) Ltd. regarding Renewal Notices and he has produced at Sr.No.1 to 7 of the list. The renewal notices were received by the company on 18- 1-2001 alongwith a cheque No.490333 dated 17-1-2001 from the insured drawn on Bank of India, Industrial Finance Branch, Bombay for Rs.21,742/- towards renewal of insurance policy No.31/26113 to 31/26119 for 7 vehicles. He has produced the cheque at Sr.No.8 of the list. the cheque was presented for realization through Central Bank of India, but it was returned with remarks "Exceed arrangement" vide memo dated 8-2-2001. The Central Bank of India in turned returned the cheques to the company vide memo dated 16-2-2001. It is stated that on account of dishonour of cheque, the company did not get insurance premium and therefore the company has cancelled all insurance policies ab initio vide sending letter dated 12-3-2001 prior to the date of the accident which occurred on 19-3-2001. It is stated that the company is not liable to indemnify the insured and pay compensation to the applicant the witness was cross examined by the learned advocate for the applicant. During the cross examination, it is admitted that insurance policy Ex.42 was issued by the company and policy indicates covering period from 18-1-2001 to 17-1-2002. It is further admitted that seven days period was given to the insured. It is further admitted that letter does not indicate, from which date the policy was cancelled. It is also admitted that they have not informed regarding cancellation of policy. The witness was shown letter Mark 58/12 and it is exhibited at 60. 24. xxx 25. xxx 26. The learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance on the following decisions: [a] 2000 ACJ 630 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rula and others. It is also admitted that they have not informed regarding cancellation of policy. The witness was shown letter Mark 58/12 and it is exhibited at 60. 24. xxx 25. xxx 26. The learned advocate for the applicant has placed reliance on the following decisions: [a] 2000 ACJ 630 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rula and others. It is held therein that "Whether insurance company is exempted from third party liability if the cheque towards premium is dishonoured and policy is cancelled after accrual of liability - Held: no;payment of premium is not the concern of third party; subsequent cancellation of policy due to dishonour of cheque would not affect the rights of a third party which had accrued on the date of accident. ( 1998 ACJ 123 (DC) followed" 27. So far as liability of compensation is concerned, the learned advocate for the applicant has produced insurance policy No.210100/31/2001/26117 at exh.42. It covers the period from 18-1-2001 to 17-1-2002. 28. It appears from the evidence that there is no information that letter ex.60 was sent to the insured under particular Outward Number and Date. There is no evidence that the insured had received the said letter. The witness has admitted in the cross examination that cancellation of insurance policy was not informed to the insured. It is also admitted by the said witness that intimation regarding cancellation of insurance policy was not sent to RTO. Considering the arguments of both the sides and the ratio laid down in the above decisions, the opponent company is liable to pay compensation to the application. Thus, the opponents being driver, owner and insurance company they are jointly and/or severally liable to pay the awarded compensation to the applicant" 12. From the aforesaid discussion, it is evidently clear that the witness who has been examined by the opponent- Insurance Company through affidavit at Exh.56 sworn by Mr. Subhash Gopalrao Baheram and from the said deposition and crossexamination, it has been clearly found by the learned Tribunal that the said witness in cross-examination has admitted that insurance policy at Exh.42 was issued by the Insurance Company and the coverage period mentioned is from 18.01.2001 to 17.01.2002. It was further admitted that 7 days period was given to insure and has further admitted in his crossexamination that letter of Insurance Company does not indicate from which date the policy was canceled. It was further admitted that 7 days period was given to insure and has further admitted in his crossexamination that letter of Insurance Company does not indicate from which date the policy was canceled. It was also admitted specifically that the company has not informed regarding cancellation of policy and the witness has indicated the letter at mark 58/12 which is at Exh.60. Further, it has also been found that at the time when accident took place and the liability arose, the Insurance Company has not informed the policy holder about cancellation and the same has also not been informed by Insurance Company to RTO. Hence, the learned Tribunal rightly held specifically that in the circumstances which are prevailing on record, the liability to pay the compensation of Insurance Company is arising and the opponent being driver, owner and the Insurance Company all are held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to the original claimant. So from aforesaid analysis of material on record when the learned Tribunal has found in the absence of any contrary material produced before this Court by the appellant, the Court is of the view that substitutions of view is not deserving in the present case on hand. 13. Additionally, as narrated in the order as well and a decision in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rula and others reported in 2000 ACJ 630 , it was held that no payment of premium is not the concerned of third party and subsequent cancellation of policy due to dishonoure of cheque would not affect the rights of a third party which had occurred on the date of accident. This view would have been differently treated had the accident occurred after communication to the insurer about cancellation of policy in the event premium having not been received by the company but there is no such evidence worth name on this issue nor the same has come out from the cross-examination of witness of appellant-company, the Court is of the view that the view taken by the Tribunal does not deserve to be accepted. 14. 14. Additionally, in a situation like this when admittedly the cancellation of policy was not communicated either to the insured or to RTO and the same was not canceled prior to the date of accident there is hardly any reason for this Court to take a different view then what has been taken by the learned Tribunal. The conclusion arrived at by the Court is also keeping in view the benevolent object of the Act in question. It has been propounded, time and again, by the catena of decisions that a benevolent legislation should not be construed strictly and as such when the material on record which has been analyzed by the Tribunal found to be not supporting the stand of the learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati appearing for the appellant, in considered opinion of this Court that there is hardly any reason to interfere with the order impugned in the appeal. 15. In view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal lacks merit. Hence, the same is dismissed hereby and the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad on 25.11.2010 in M.A.C. Petition No.464 of 2001 is hereby confirmed.