JUDGMENT :

Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.

Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.11.2016 of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur passed in M.V.O.P.No.432 of 2013, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim against the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants.

2. Facts germane to dispose of the appeal may briefly be stated as follows:

The appellants are the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.432 of 2013. They are the wife, progeny and mother of late Piridi Apparao. On 11.03.2013, about 7.00 a.m., when Apparao was going on his motorcycle from his house to attend his duty, as a fireman in Fire Station of Pamarru, and when he reached near Anjaneya Swamy Temple of Gudiwada on NH-165, a Van bearing No.AP 37 X 3736 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle, on which, Apparao was going. He sustained injuries in the said accident and succumbed to the said injuries while undergoing treatment in Primary Health Centre, Pamarru.

3. A case in Crime No.50 of 2013 of Pamarru Police Station was registered under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”) against the driver of the said van in connection with the said accident. Eventually, after completion of investigation, police found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the said van by its driver. So, police filed charge sheet against the driver of the van for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C.

4. The appellants, who are wife, children and mother of the deceased Apparao, laid claim for compensation before the Tribunal. They laid the said claim against the owner and driver of the van as 1st and 3rd respondents and against the insurer of the said van i.e. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, shown as 2nd respondent in the said claim petition.

5. At the culmination of the enquiry, the Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, and on appreciation of the same, found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the van by its driver. Accordingly, recorded a finding to that effect in the impugned order. As the 1st respondent is the owner of the said van, which involved in the accident, the Tribunal held him liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, awarded a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- towards compensation to the claimants. However, the liability to pay the compensation is fixed only against the 1st respondent, who is the owner of the van and also on 3rd respondent, who is the driver of the said vehicle. Even though, the said vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company, the Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal, exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability to indemnify the owner on the ground that the policy for the said vehicle was issued on 08.03.2013 and a cheque was issued by the 1st respondent-owner to the Insurance Company towards payment of premium on the same day and the said cheque was dishonoured and in view of the fact that the cheque was dishonoured and premium was not paid, that the Insurance policy was cancelled on 30.03.2013 and the same was intimated to the 1st respondent-owner of the said vehicle and as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner.

6. Therefore, aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal in absolving the 2nd respondent Insurance Company from its liability to indemnify the owner of the vehicle, this Appeal is preferred by the claimants assailing the legal validity of the said order.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent Insurance Company.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that as the policy was issued on 08.03.2013 and accident occurred on 11.03.2013, that the