These MFAs are filed U/s. 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 06.09.2006 passed in MVC Nos.1128/1997, 1123/1997, 1125/1997, 1127/1997, 1129/1997, 1130/1997, 1136/1997, 1124/1997, 1131/1997, 1132/1997, 1134/1997 and 1135/1997 respectively on the file of the presiding officer, fast tract Court-III and MACT, Tumkur, awarding a compensation of Rs.45,700/-, 22,000/, 22,000/-, 69,560/-, 11,500/-, 11,000/-, 24,000/-, 36,450/-, 11,000/-, 24,250/-, 29,250/- and 28,000/- respectively with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

Common Judgment:

All these 12 Miscellaneous First Appeals have arisen from the same Common Judgment and respective Awards dated 06.09.2006 passed in MVC No. 1123/1997 and other connected cases on the file of learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III and Addl. MACT, Tumkur (hereinafter referred to as ‘MACT’ for short).

2. The respective motor vehicle compensation cases were filed before the MACT by the respective injured-claimants claiming compensation towards the bodily injuries sustained by them in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.10.1996 at about 3.00 p.m., on Huliyur road near Aladekkatte within limits of Chiknayakanahalli police station in Tumkur District which was caused by the driver of Matador Van bearing registration No.KA 06-5878 by driving it in a rash and negligent manner. All these appeals are by the insurer of the said vehicle. Respondent No.1 is the claimant and respondent No.2 is the owner of said vehicle in each of these appeals. The same set of facts and question of law are involved in all these appeals. Therefore, these appeals are disposed of by this Common Judgment.

3. I have heard the argument of Sri. O. Mahesh, learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and Sri. M.R. Shashidhar, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants in all these appeals. Perused the impugned Judgment and respective Awards.

4. It is not in dispute that the accident, involving the said vehicle, occurred on the said date, time and place and that as a result of the said accident, the claimants in each of the said cases sustained bodily injuries. It is also not in dispute that the said accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by its driver and that second respondent was the owner thereof.

5. The second respondent, the owner of the said vehicle has not chosen to contest these appeals despite receipt of notice of appeals.

6. Having heard the learned Counsel for both the sides, the only point that arise for my determination is:

“Whether the MACT is justified in directing the appellant Insurance Company to pay to the respective injured claimants in all the said cases the respective amounts of compensation awarded by it, despite recording its findings that the policy of Insurance that was issued by the appellant Insurance company was cancelled much earlier to the occurrence of the accident for the reason that the cheque that was issued by the owner of vehicle towards premium had bounced?

7. The following facts are not in dispute:

a) The appellant Insurance Company issued in favour of second respondent owner Ex.D3 certificate-cum-policy in respect of the said matador van valid for the period from 10.00 hours on 17.08.1996 till mid night of 16.08.1997. The owner of the said vehicle issued Ex.D1 cheque dated 16.08.1996 for Rs.4,447/- being the premium towards insurance of the said vehicle.

b) The said cheque came to be returned to the Insurance Company dishonored for want of funds in the account of owner of the said vehicle. Ex.D4 is the intimation given by the bank to the insurance company in respect of dishonour of the said cheque. Then the Insurance company cancelled the policy of insurance issued in respect of the said vehicle and Ex.D6 is the copy of cancellation notice and Ex.D7 is the postal acknowledgement to the effect that said notice was received by the owner on 27.08.1996.

8. Thus, it is clear from the abo