SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this court u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (to be referred to as 'the M.V. Act'), appellant Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed this appeal questioning the legality and validity of the impugned award dated 17.3.2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kanker, District Uttar Bastar, Chhattisgarh in Claim Case No. 61 of 2008, by which claimants' application has been partly allowed and the appellant insurance company has been directed to indemnify the amount under impugned award. Brief facts in nutshell necessary for adjudication of this appeal are as under:

1.1 Tanuja Thakur, aged about 34 years, was travelling in the minibus bearing registration No. CG 04-E 0694. Due to negligent act of the bus driver, Tanuja Thakur fell down from the minibus and sustained grievous injuries and subsequently died. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (to be referred to as 'the claimants') filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 9,29,000/- jointly and severally from owner, driver and insurance company.

1.2 The owner and insurer contested the claim petition on diverse grounds. The insurer raised the plea in the written statement that insurance policy No. 4368, dated 12.10.2006, issued by it covered the risk of said minibus for the period 12.10.2006 to 11.10.2007 was not valid as the premium was paid through cheque No. 37450 and the said cheque got dishonoured, which was duly intimated to the owner of the vehicle by cancelling the policy. Therefore, appellant insurance company was not liable to indemnify the impugned award.

1.3 The Claims Tribunal after recording evidence and after hearing the parties held that the claimants were successful in proving that on 24.4.2007, the deceased Tanuja Thakur was travelling in the minibus and fell down from the minibus by negligent act of the respondent driver and died due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident. The Claims Tribunal also recorded finding of fact that on examination of the documentary and oral evidence that the cheque against the policy No. 998 was dishonoured and cancellation of policy No. 4368 covering the vehicle in question has not been intimated to the owner of the vehicle, therefore, the appellant insurance company was liable to indemnify compensation amount to the claimants. The Claims Tribunal in its award dated 17.3.2009 further held that the claimants were entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,95,500/- and apportioned that amount amongst the claimants.

1.4 Feeling dissatisfied with the impugned award, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant insurer.

1.5 Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company, would submit that having regard to the undisputed fact that the cheque issued by the respondent owner of the vehicle towards the premium for insurance of vehicle was dishonoured and said fact was intimated to the respondent owner before the date of accident, the contract of insurance became void and the appellant insurer could not be compelled to perform its part of promise under the policy. According to Mr. Agrawal, no liability can be fastened on the insurer qua third party as the policy of insurance is rendered void for want of consideration to the appellant insurer.

1.6 Per contra, Mr. Rakesh Thakur, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, would submit that cancellation of the policy covering the offending vehicle was never intimated to the owner of vehicle, therefore, the appellant insurer cannot disown its liability and the learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely justified in directing the appellant insurer to indemnify the compensation amount.

1.7 None appeared on behalf of owner and the driver, respondent Nos. 3 and 4, though served.

2. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the award impugned including records of the Claims Tribunal carefully.

3. The short questio