( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the Insurance Company to challenge the judgment and award dated 1-6-1994 in MVC No. 242/90 passed by the District Judge and MACT, Karwar, whereunder a sum of Rs. 37,000/- together with interest 9% was awarded in favour of claimant/respondent No. 1 as against the total claim of Rs. 50,000/ -.

( 2 ) I heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri M. Sowri Raju, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 1, Smt. Preethi Dayananda and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 owner, Sri M. Swayamprakash.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case are interesting enough and are as hereunder :that the respondent No. 2 owner, had obtained cover note and policy in respect of his car No. CNO 2727 on 3-3-1990 and as against the payment of premium of Rs. 128/- he had issued a cheque in favour of the Appellant-Insurance Company for the like sum. That on the very day i. e. on 3-3-1990 at about 6-20 p. m. , the non-party driver, one Ismail working under the respondent No. 2, owner had caused the accident on N. H. No. 17 at Muttalli cross, Bhatkal Taluk, U. K. District resulting in death of one Biliyappa Naik, aged about 70 years, the husband of the respondent No. 1. That the respondent No. 1, the widow of the deceased Biliyappa Naik had filed a claim petition before the District Judge and MACT Karwa (henceforth in brief as 'mact') claiming a sum of Rs. 50,000/ under the M. V. Act. That the appellant on the one side and the respondent No. 2 owner on the other had contested the claim of the respondent No. 1 before the MACT. The respondent No. 1 claimant had adduced her side of the evidence in support of her claim and so also the appellant-Insurance Company had adduced it's side of the evidence to deny the claim. Whereas the respondent No. 2 owner did not choose to adduce any evidence from his side before the MACT. 3a. That on appreciation of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, the MACT had awarded a sum of Rs. 37,000/- as global compensation as against the claim of Rupees 50,000/- by the respondent No. 1.

( 4 ) HAVING been aggrieved with the impugned judgment and award, the Appellant-Insurance Company is before this Court to challenge the same. As a matter of fact, the instant appeal by the Insurance company is one point appeal, for what they had urged in the appeal memorandum is that as on the date of issue of the policy, on 3-3-1990, the respondent No. 2 owner had issued a cheque, and that, subsequently the said cheque came to be bounced and as such it could not be said that the premium was paid as against the issue of the policy by the Appellant-Insurance Company and therefore, the insurance policy that came to be issued by the Appellant-Insurance company was void and therefore did not cover the risk to fasten the liability thereunder as against it.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the Appellant, Sri M. Sowri Raju while urging the said solitary ground submitted that bouncing of the cheque issued by the respondent No. 2 owner was a subsequent event and whereas the accident in question had taken place on the very day and therefore according to him, it could not be argued by other side that the risk was covered under the policy issued by the Insurance Company. In other words to say, the argument of Sri Sowri Raju is to the effect that without the premium being paid as on the date of issue of the policy as well as on the date of accident, the MACT had fallen into an error in fastening the liability on the Appellant-Insurance Company also. According to him, the MACT would have fastened the liability only on the owner, the respondent No. 2 herein.

( 6 ) YET another point Sri Sowri Raju argued before me is that the respondent No. 2 owner had paid the insurance premium of Rs. 128/- under the cheque that came to be dishonoured subsequently, only on 15-3-1993, but again suppressing the very fact of accident occurred in the hands of the non-party driver employed by him on the v