Sunil K. Kotwal, J.

This appeal is directed by SBI Insurance Company Ltd., which was respondent No. 3 in Motor Accident Claims Petition ("MACP", for short) No.307/2015, against the judgment and award dated 7th March, 2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ("Tribunal", for short), Latur in MACP No.307/2015, whereby compensation of Rs.11,93,200/- was awarded and joint and several liability was saddled on original respondent Nos.1 to 3. In this appeal, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are original claimants. Respondent No.2 is original owner of offending vehicle in the claim proceeding. Respondent No.5 is driver of the offending vehicle.

2. Heard Shri S.S. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company, Shri Ram S. Shinde, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 - original claimants and Shri A.K. Gawali, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Hereinafter the parties are referred in accordance with their status in the original proceeding.

3. The facts, in nutshell, are that on 19th November, 2015 when the deceased was riding his motorcycle by Nilanga to Kasar-Sirsi road, the offending private bus, bearing registration No. MH12-KQ-0881 came from the opposite direction and by going towards wrong side of the road gave dash to the deceased, resulting into his death. The deceased was carpenter by profession, earning Rs.400/- per day. He was the only earning member of his family. Therefore, the claimants filed claim petition for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner, driver and insurer of the offending bus.

4. The owner and driver of the offending bus did not resist the claim petition. However, the insurer of offending bus filed written statement (Exh-23) and denied its liability to pay the compensation on the ground that it had issued two policies of insurance of the offending bus bearing Nos.3501626 and 2183307. However, both the policies were cancelled by the insurer of the vehicle due to bouncing of cheques issued by the owner of the vehicle issued towards premium of both policies. The defence of contributory negligence was also raised by the Insurance Company.

5. However, at the stage of arguments, learned counsel for the Insurance Company waived the defence of contributory negligence. Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company challenged the award only on the ground that because the policies of insurance issued by the insurer of the offending vehicle were cancelled by the Insurance Company after the occurrence of the incident on account of bouncing of the cheques issued towards premium, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the Insurance Company has right to recover the compensation from owner of offending vehicle, paid to the claimants, towards satisfaction of the award passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, following point arises for my consideration.

"Whether the appellant - Insurance Company has right to recover from the owner of the offending vehicle, the compensation amount paid to the claimants towards satisfaction of the award passed by the Tribunal ?"

6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the insurance policy No.3501626 was issued on 10th November, 2015, which was valid and effective from that date. The accident resulting into the death of the deceased occurred on 19th November, 2015. However, the cheque issued by the owner of the offending vehicle involved in the accident, towards premium fees of the policy of insurance was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the accounts of the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, on 14th December, 2015, Insurance Company issued notice to the owner of bus and R.T.O. and informed that policy No.3501626 was cancelled. He submits that as the policy of insurance was cancelled by the Insurance Company and when its intimation was served to the owner of the offending vehicle, the contract of insurance in between Insurance Company and owner of the of