JUDGMENT : V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.07.2014 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, passed in M.V.O.P. No. 436 of 2007, whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim against the respondents 1 to 3, the instant appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company. 2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3. The claimant filed a Claim Petition under sections 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with 455 of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 29.09.2006. 4. The facts germane to dispose of this appeal may be briefly stated as follows: On 29.09.2006 at about 10.30 p.m., while the petitioner was going towards Anakapalli from Gajuwaka on his motor cycle bearing No. AP 31 AK 8249 and when he reached near Lankilapalem junction, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, one Volvo bus bearing No. AP 05TT 4747, hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’ driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the petitioner’s vehicle from back side, resulting which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Basing on the complaint, the Station House Officer, Parawada police station registered a case in Crime No. 164 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and after completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. 5. The first and second respondents remained ex-parte. The third respondent filed counter denying the claim of the claimant and contended that the claimant is not entitled any compensation and the third respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the Motor accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. AP 05TT 4747 (Volvo Bus) driven by its driver? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? (iii) To what relief? 7. (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? (iii) To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 and Ex.X1 were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 were marked. 8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.6,33,500/- to the claimant towards compensation. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the third respondent Insurance Company filed the appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal. 9. Heard Smt A. Jayanthi, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Sri G. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-claimant. 10. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference? If so, to what extent? 11. POINT: The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/appellant would vehemently contend that the policy was issued on 11.09.2006 and the owner of the vehicle issued a cheque for payment of premium vide cheque bearing No. 580424, dated 11.09.2006 and the Insurance Company presented the cheque in the bank on 16.09.2006 and the same was returned with a reason ‘funds insufficient’ and Insurance Company prepared a notice on 28.09.2006 and the same was dispatched on 30.09.2006 and that the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. The counsel for claimant would submit that any amount of cancelation of policy by non-payment of premium amount will be existing date when it is brought to the notice of owner of the vehicle and till then it has to be considered as subsisting. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for appellant has confined her arguments only to the liability fixed on the Insurance Company. 12. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for appellant has confined her arguments only to the liability fixed on the Insurance Company. 12. The paramount question that falls for adjudication in this appeal is whether the cheque issued towards payment of premium for the policy taken in respect of the offending vehicle, was dishonoured subsequently and that the policy was cancelled on the ground that the cheque that was issued towards payment of premium was dishonoured, would be a valid legal ground to exonerate the Insurance Company from its liability and to indemnify the owner of the said vehicle to pay the compensation to the third parties, on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the Motor Vehicles accident that occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle. 13. After considering the earlier judgments rendered by the Apex Court, in this regard in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Inderjit Kaur, 1998 (1) SCC 371 , National Insurance Company Limited vs. Seema Malhotra and others, 2001 (3) SCC 151 and Deddappa vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, 2008 (2) SCC 595 and after considering the relevant provisions of Motor Vehicles Act i.e. Section 147, 149 and also Section 64 of VB of Insurance Act, the Apex Court authoritatively held in United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Laxmamma and others, 2012 (5) SCC 234 in that decision it was held as under: “In our view, the legal position is this: where the policy of insurance is issued by an authorized insurer on receipt of cheque towards payment of premium and such 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 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 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 ceases and the insurance company is not liable to satisfy awards of compensation in respect thereof.” “Having regard to the above legal position, insofar as facts of the present case are concerned, the owner of the bus obtained policy of insurance from the insurer for the period April 16, 2004 to April 15, 2005 for which premium was paid through cheque on April 14, 2004. The accident occurred on May 11, 2004. It was only thereafter that the insurer cancelled the insurance policy by communication dated May 13, 2004 on the ground of dishonour of cheque which was received by the owner of the vehicle on May 21, 2004. The cancellation of policy having been done by the insurer after the accident, the insurer became liable to satisfy award of compensation passed in favour of the claimants.” 14. The ratio laid down in the above judgment squarely applies to the present facts of the case. In the instant case also, the policy was issued on 11.09.2006 and the cheque towards the premium was issued on the same day i.e. on 11.09.2006. Thereafter the cheque was dishonoured on 16.09.2006 and the accident occurred on 29.09.2006, thereafter the Insurance Company dispatched the letter for intimation of cancellation of policy on 30.09.2006 i.e. after the occurrence of the accident. The policy of Insurance is issued by insurer on 11.09.2006 on receipt of cheque, the said cheque was dishonoured on 16.09.2006, the accident occurred on 29.09.2006. Though the notice of intimation to the insured is dated 28.09.2006, it was dispatched on 30.09.2006, that too after the occurrence of accident, therefore, the liability of insurer to indemnify third party in respect of liability, which that policy covered, subsists, because the cancellation of policy is not intimated to the insured by the insurer prior to the accident. 15. Though the notice of intimation to the insured is dated 28.09.2006, it was dispatched on 30.09.2006, that too after the occurrence of accident, therefore, the liability of insurer to indemnify third party in respect of liability, which that policy covered, subsists, because the cancellation of policy is not intimated to the insured by the insurer prior to the accident. 15. The material on record reveals that on 30.09.2006 the Insurance Company dispatched the letter for giving intimation of the cancellation of policy to the owner of the vehicle, that too after the occurrence of the accident. As stated supra, the accident in question was occurred on 29.09.2006, the same is not disputed by the appellant-Insurance Company. Therefore, the Insurer is undoubtedly liable to pay the compensation as per the law enunciated in the above cited judgment of Apex Court to indemnify the owner of the Volvo bus and to pay the compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal, on considering the entire material on record, rightly passed award against all the respondents including Insurance Company. As stated supra, the quantum of compensation awarded in this case is not disputed by the appellant. The appellant is disputing the liability fixed on the Insurance Company only. Therefore, I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal fixing the liability on the Insurance Company. Accordingly, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is perfectly sustainable under law and it warrants no interference. Accordingly, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 16. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed, confirming the award passed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.