K. J. SENGUPTA, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.

( 1 ) BOTH the appeals are disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) THE insurance company preferred appeal against order passed under section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (F. M. A. No. 685 of 2005) while the kins of the victim have preferred an appeal against judgment and award passed finally by the learned Tribunal under section 166 of the said Act against the insurance company.

( 3 ) THE grievance in substance of the insurance company is that on the date of the incident the insurance policy was not renewed. The cheque which was issued for payment was subsequently dishonoured. Since there has been no consideration, therefore, the contract for insurance is void and the insurance company cannot be fastened with liability in the instant case.

( 4 ) THE kins of the victim who have preferred separate appeal against the final order have questioned by ventilating their grievances that the multiplier factor has been overlooked by the learned Tribunal as provided in the statute. The multiplier factor should have been 11 in place and stead of what has been followed by the learned Tribunal.

( 5 ) IT is also the grievance of the kins that the learned Tribunal has not granted statutory interest payable on the amount of compensation.

( 6 ) FROM the scheme of the provisions of section 140 of the said Act the order passed thereunder, in our view, is an interim measure and merges with the final order passed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988.

( 7 ) IT is pertinent to record herein that insurance company has not preferred any appeal against the final order. But the basic question raised herein is squarely entertainable both in case of section 140 as well as section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as it goes to the very root of the matter as to whether the insurance company can be made liable for making payment or not.

( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the insurance company contends that there has been no insurance contract because of dishonour of cheque. In support of his submission he has relied on two decisions of the Supreme court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Seema Malhotra, 2001 ACJ 638 (SC) and tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpn. Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya, 2005 ACJ 1441 (SC ). Latest supreme Court decision was relied upon on the point of interest. He says that it is for the Tribunal to decide as to what multiplier method would be followed or what rate of interest should be granted and this depends upon each and every individual fact and circumstances of the case and no strait-jacket formula can be laid down. Even the superior court cannot substitute the act of discretion in place of that of the tribunal.

( 9 ) MR. Banik, learned advocate, while pressing his client's appeal and opposing the appeal of the insurance company contends that from the facts and circumstances of this case it will appear that when the accident took place there was no whisper as to coverage. The cheque was dishonoured on a date subsequent to the date of occurrence. Intimation of such dishonour was given by a letter. He contends that insurance contract is related to insurance company and the insured and the third party has nothing to do with the non-payment of consideration. Once the policy is issued it is under the statutory provision, the insurance company is bound to pay compensation to the third party. In support of this submission, he has relied on a decision of the Full Bench of Kerala High Court in oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sivankutty, 2006 ACJ 106 (Kerala ).

( 10 ) BEFORE we deal with rival contentions of both the learned counsel, we think it fit to narrate the sequence of events which led to filing of this case.

( 11 ) ON 1. 8. 2000 the respondent No. 7, the owner of the offending vehicle issued a cheque in favour of the appellant insurance company (in short 'the company) for rs. 7,430 towards renewal of policy from 1. 8. 2000 to 31. 7. 2001.

( 12 ) ON 11. 8. 2000 the company had addressed a letter

Click Here to Read the rest of this document