JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company, questioning the award and decree, dated 29.10.2011 passed in O.P.No.754 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge (I FTC) at Nalgonda (for short, the Tribunal). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The 1st claimant (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 16.05.2007. During pendency of the claim-petition, the 1st claimant died and the claimants 2 and 3, who are the wife and daughter of the 1st claimant, were brought on record. It is stated in the claim-petition that on the date of accident, while the deceased boarded an auto bearing No.AP 24 U 6333 in order to go to Chakirala Village and when the auto reached near Madina Chicken Centre, N.H.No.9 at Kodada, one Indica Car bearing No.AP 16 TV 6593 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, dashed the auto, as a result of which, the deceased and other inmates of the auto sustained injuries. Basing on a complaint, a case in Crime No.77 of 2007 has been registered against the driver of the Car. The 1st claimant filed aforesaid O.P. against the respondents 1 to 3, being the driver, owner and insurer of the aforesaid Indica Car. 4. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. 5. The 3rd respondent filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. 7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the Indica Car and awarded total compensation of Rs.2,26,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-Insurance Company filed the present appeal. 8. Heard both sides and perused the record. 9. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-Insurance Company filed the present appeal. 8. Heard both sides and perused the record. 9. The main contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has grossly erred in making the appellant-Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation when the policy issued was not in existence as on the date of the accident and the same was cancelled long back i.e. much before the accident occurred. The Tribunal also ought to have appreciated the fact that the policy was got cancelled on the same day by the owner of the Indica Car and the cheque was taken by the owner as the owner withdrawn to purchase the Car and in this regard the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the evidence of R.W.1 and exhibits marked by the respondents vide Exs.B.1 to B.4. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered that since the owner himself has got cancelled the policy and no premium was remitted to the appellant, as such there is no contract of insurance between the insured and the insurer as required under Sections 146 and 147 of the M.V.Act. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal. 10. However, learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant are against the weight of evidence on record and the learned Tribunal has categorically dealt with these issues and has rightly come to the conclusion that the insurance company as well as the owner of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. It is also submitted that in support of the contentions, the insurance company has not chosen to examine the owner of the crime vehicle and that the insurance company has also not filed any acknowledgment and nothing was stated in the appendix/proofs that prima facie the policy was in existence as on the date of the accident. 11. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Tribunal while answering issue No.II at paragraph Nos.19 and 20 has categorically dealt with the same and held that “considering the evidence on record, I held that respondent No.2 is the owner of the crime vehicle as on the date of the accident and the policy issued by respondent No.3 was in force. Therefore, respondent No.3 insurance company cannot be absolved from its liability in payment of compensation to the third parties. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 being the registered owner and insurer of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation to the petitioner. For the sake of convenience, the findings arrived at paragraph Nos.19 and 20 of the judgment are extracted hereunder. “19. R.W.1 (V.Rami Reddy), employee of respondent No.3 (United India Insurance Company) at Miryalaguda branch deposed that policy has been cancelled by their company at Jaggaiahpeta branch on 06.10.2006 itself and the original policy was collected from respondent No.2, owner of Indica Car bearing No.AP 16 V 6593 on the same day on receipt of cancellation letter (Ex.B3) given by him and the cheque issued by him on Andhra Bank towards insurance premium was also returned to him as he withdrawn to purchase the vehicle. Ex.B4 is the copy of policy cancellation register dated 06.10.2006. In his cross-examination, R.W.1 admitted that he has not produced the inward and outward registers maintained by Jaggaiahpet branch where the policy was issued to the crime vehicle. R.W.1 further alleged to be written by respondent No.2. It is further admitted by R.W.1 that their company had not sent any information to the RTO, Krishna District with regard to the cancellation of the policy as per the provisions under Section 147 (4) of M.V.Act. 20. As per the evidence on record, respondent No.3/ Insurance company has failed to examine respondent No.2, owner of the vehicle to prove that the said letter (Ex.B3) was written by respondent No.2 and the cheque issued by him towards Insurance premium was returned by their office. It also failed to produce postal acknowledgment from respondent No.2 informing about the cancellation of policy. Further, respondent No.3 failed to inform RTA, Krishna District with regard to cancellation of Insurance policy for the vehicle bearing No.AP 16 TV 6593 as per the provisions under Section 147 (4) of M.V.Act and the same was admitted by RW1. Further, as per the crime records i.e., Ex.A2 charge sheet, respondent No.2 was owner of the crime vehicle as on the date of accident i.e., on 16.05.2007. Further, as per the crime records i.e., Ex.A2 charge sheet, respondent No.2 was owner of the crime vehicle as on the date of accident i.e., on 16.05.2007. Even if the contention of respondent No.3/Insurance company is accepted to be true that respondent No.2 did not purchase the crime vehicle due to mechanical defect and the policy was cancelled by their company on the date of purchase itself, how respondent No.2 was shown as owner of the vehicle in Ex.A2 after several months after thorough investigation done by the police. Therefore, the version of respondent No.3/Insurance Company with regard to cancellation of policy after receiving intimation from respondent No.2 does not inspire confidence of the Tribunal and as such it is not accepted. Under these circumstances, considering the evidence on record, I hold that respondent No.2 is owner of the crime vehicle as on the date of accident and the policy issued by respondent No.3 was in force. Therefore, respondent No.3/Insurance Company cannot be absolved from its liability in payment of compensation to the third parties. Respondents 2 and 3, being the registered owner and insurer of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation to the petitioner.” 12. Further, a Full Bench of the Apex Court in the decision reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur, AIR 1998 SC 588 has categorically held that the rights of the third parties to claim compensation both from the insured and insurer are not affected under law by the conduct of insured in issuing a cheque, which was later on dishonoured. The relevant portion at paragraph No. 9 is extracted as under : “The policy of insurance that the appellant issued was a representation upon which the authorities and third parties were entitled to act. The appellant was not absolved of its obligations to third parties under the policy because it did not receive the premium. Its remedies in this behalf lay against the insured.” 13. In another decision reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rula, 2000 ACJ 630 , the Apex Court following the earlier decision of the Apex Court (2 supra) held as under : “9. Its remedies in this behalf lay against the insured.” 13. In another decision reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rula, 2000 ACJ 630 , the Apex Court following the earlier decision of the Apex Court (2 supra) held as under : “9. Thus, any contract of insurance under Chapter 11 of the Motor vehicle 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. Pressumal Dhanamal Aswani {1958-65 ACJ 559 (SC)}, 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. 11. The decision, which is a three 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 dishonoured, 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 the insurance policy on the ground of non-payment of premium would not affect the rights already accrued in favour of the third party.” 14. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court (2 supra), the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to third parties on account of statutory compulsion due to the initial agreement entered between the insured and the company concerned. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court (2 supra), the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to third parties on account of statutory compulsion due to the initial agreement entered between the insured and the company concerned. Therefore, I do not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that the owner alone is liable to pay the compensation and the Insurance Company is not under obligation to pay the compensation on the ground that the cheque issued by the owner of the offending vehicle was returned. 15. In view of the categorical finding of the Tribunal, as stated supra and in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case laws, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant. The appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.