JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant/ Insurance company impugning the order dated 17.07.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum – IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool in MVOP.No.46 of 2010. 2. Heard arguments of Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, the learned counsel appeared on behalf of Sri K.Subba Rao, the learned counsel for appellant/ insurance company and Sri Butta Vijaya Bhaskar, the learned counsel for respondents/claimants. 3. Before the claims tribunal, it was a death claim filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for a compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-. The deceased was a married man. His wife and two minor children and his parents filed the said claim as against the owner of the alleged offending tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos. AP 21 Y 6708 and AP 21 V 7793. At the material point of time, the deceased was aged 28 years. On 04.03.2009, he was crossing the road to pay a visit to Shirdi Sai Baba Temple at Aspari, Kurnool district. The offending tractor trailer being driven by its driver rashly or negligently dashed him leading to his spot death. Police registered FIR/ Ex.A1 and subjected the dead body to inquest/ Ex.A2 and got his autopsy/ Ex.A3 conducted. The offending vehicle was examined by the motor vehicle inspector who certified that the accident was not out of any mechanical defect of the vehicle/ Ex.A5 thus making it clear that the accident was out of human error. After due investigation a charge sheet/ Ex.A4 was filed against the driver of the offending tractor trailer. R1 therein/ owner of the offending vehicle filed a counter stating that he got the vehicle insured with M/s Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Limited and therefore the liability, if any, should be indemnified by the said insurance company. Insurance company/ R2 therein filed its counter. It denied the narration made out in the claim petition. The specific stand of the insurance company was that at the material point of time there was no insurance policy in force and therefore there could be no liability. 4. On the rival pleadings, learned claims tribunal settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Tractor Trailor bearing No. AP 21-Y- 6708 and AP-21-V-7793? 2. 4. On the rival pleadings, learned claims tribunal settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Tractor Trailor bearing No. AP 21-Y- 6708 and AP-21-V-7793? 2. Whether the claimant is entitle to the compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-or to what just amount and from whom the same shall be recovered? 3. To what relief? 5. The wife of the deceased testified as PW.1. Eyewitness to the incident who happened to be employer of the deceased testified as PW.2. Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. Insurance company examined RW.1 and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked. 6. The age of the deceased was not in dispute. His employment was also not in dispute. His legal representatives claimed that he was earning from agriculture and also towards batta for his duties. After considering the entire material on record and the contentions on both sides, learned claims tribunal found that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and thus his annual income was Rs.36,000/-. Towards his possible personal expenses 1/3 rd was deducted and the annual income was arrived at Rs.27,000/-. Going by his age, multiplier 18 was applied. Rs.4,86,000/- was granted towards loss of dependency. Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses. Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium were also granted. A total compensation of Rs.5,09,000/- was arrived at. 7. Considering the investigative outcome of police and the version of the eyewitness/ PW.2, it found that the accident and resultant death was out of rash or negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle 8. Ex.B3 was the insurance policy issued by R2/ insurance company therein. The question that fell for consideration was as to whether the insurance policy was in force at the material point of time or not. After a detailed analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, claims tribunal held that the policy was in force and the insurance company had to shoulder the responsibility. An award has been granted in the following terms. In the result, the petition is partly allowed granting the amount of Rs.5,09,000/- towards compensation with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against R.1 and R.2. 27. An award has been granted in the following terms. In the result, the petition is partly allowed granting the amount of Rs.5,09,000/- towards compensation with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against R.1 and R.2. 27. R.2 the Insurance Company is granted 30 days time for depositing the awarded amount of Rs.5,09,000/- and on such depositing, the first petitioner is entitle to withdraw an amount of Rs.59,000/- out of her share of Rs.2,09,000/- and the remaining amount shall be deposited in any nationalized bank for a period of two years. 28. Petitioners 2 and 3 being minors the amount as awarded to them Rs.1,00,000/- each shall be deposited in any nationalized bank till they attain majority. Petitioners 4 and 5 as they are aged parents are perm to withdraw the entire amount of Rs.50,000/- each as awarded to them. 29. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-. 30. R.2 is granted relief U/s 170 of M.V.Act. If the any amount is paid to the petitioners under no fault liability as U/s 140 of M.V.Act the same shall be deducted proportionately from the amount awarded to the petitioners.” 9. Aggrieved by it, the insurance company preferred this appeal. 10. The principal ground urged before this court in the memorandum of grounds of appeal reads as below: - “The Lower Court failed to see that the bone of the contention is that the owner of the vehicle gave a cheque dated 28.10.08 which was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds on 08.11.08. Hence the Insurance Company has cancelled the policy vide letter dated 25.04.2009. The accident has occurred on 04.06.2009. The Lower Court felt that the cheque was issued for Rs.64,501/- as against the required premium of Rs. 11,155/- though the cheque was dated 28.10.08.” 11. Learned counsel for appellant with all vehemence contended that it was a fact that initially the insurance policy was issued on receipt of a cheque towards premium and thereafter the cheque was presented for collection, and it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and therefore, the insurance policy was cancelled and the same was informed to the owner of the offending vehicle/ R1. 12. 12. The efficacy of the above contention was questioned by the learned counsel for respondents/ claimants and it was contended that from the evidence, learned claims tribunal rightly arrived at a conclusion that the insurance policy was in force and no warrant is there for interference. 13. The point that falls for consideration is Whether at the material point of time, the insurance policy was in force? POINT: - 14. Ex.B1 is the cheque bearing No.175371 dated 28.10.2008. It was drawn in favour of the insurance company and the drawer of the cheque was Sri S. Waheed Ahammed. Under the cheque, the premium of Rs.64,501/- was attempted to be paid. Ex.B2 is the cheque return memo dated 08.11.2008 where under which the banker returned the cheque unpaid for insufficiency of funds in the account of the drawer of the cheque. The insurance company under Ex.B4 cancelled the policy and addressed a letter dated 25.04.2009/ Ex.B5 to the owner of the offending vehicle/ Sri T.Sanjeevaiah. This was the evidence made available before the claims tribunal and these documents were proved through RW.1. 15. In his cross examination RW.1 stated that for the offending tractor trailer the premium of insurance policy was Rs.11,155/-. Thus, the question to be considered was - when the premium was only Rs.11,155/- could it be said that a premium of Rs.64,501/- could be attempted to be paid through a cheque. It was for the insurance company speaking through RW.1 to explain it. As one would notice RW.1 failed to explain this. Sri S.Waheed Ahammed who was the drawer of the cheque was not the owner of the offending vehicle. There was no evidence to indicate any contact and connection for this gentleman with the owner of the offending vehicle/ Sri T. Sanjeevaiah. It was in such circumstances, the contention of the claimants that the premium of Rs.11,155/- must have been paid in cash and must have been received in cash and consequently a valid Ex.B3 insurance policy was issued and only to avoid liability a cheque that was given by someone for some other purpose was sought to be used by the insurance company to escape from the statutory liability, appears to be highly probable. 16. The date of automobile accident and the death took place on 04.03.2009. From the record this date remains undisputed. 16. The date of automobile accident and the death took place on 04.03.2009. From the record this date remains undisputed. As stated already Ex.B3 insurance policy was issued much earlier to it and it was cancelled under Ex.B4 only on 25.04.2009. Thus, the alleged cancellation, even if it is accepted, was much after the date of the accident. Thus, by the date of the accident, the insurance policy was in force. 17. As per Ex.B5, it was only on 25.04.2009, the insurance company said to have addressed a letter of intimation to the owner of the offending vehicle to the effect that the insurance policy was cancelled. Insurance company failed to produce any evidence showing that such a letter was in fact delivered to the owner of the offending vehicle either by post or otherwise. Even the postal receipt was not filed showing that it was dispatched to the owner of the vehicle. Thus, there was no evidence to show that the alleged cancellation of insurance policy was communicated to the owner. Even otherwise, as stated earlier, by the time of this letter on 25.04.2009, the subject matter accident already took place and by that date there was no cancellation of the insurance policy. In the grounds of appeal, it is mentioned that the accident took place on 04.06.2009 which means subsequent to the cancellation of insurance policy on 25.04.2009. That being factually incorrect, one cannot agree with the contention raised in the grounds of appeal. 18. Learned claims tribunal appropriately considered the facts and rightly concluded the issues. The effort of the insurance company in trying to sustain its defence based on documents that do not pertain to the offending vehicle cannot be accepted. There is no warrant for interference in this appeal. Hence, point is answered against the appellant. 19. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.