( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 08. 07. 2004 passed by the M. A. C. T. , Delhi in MACT case no. 86/2004 whereby the claim petition of the claimants/respondent nos. 1 to 5 herein, which was initially filed under Sections 166 and 140 of the said Act and then converted into one under section 163-A, was allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,09,000/- along with interest thereon @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realization was awarded in favour of the claimants. The insurance company-appellant herein was held liable by the said impugned award to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants at first instance but at the same time a right was given to it to recover the said amount from the "insured" i. e. respondent no. 7 herein.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts resulting in filing of the present appeal may be summarized as follows:

a) Lekh Raj, aged 40 years, husband of respondent no. 1 and father of respondent nos. 2-5 on the intervening night of 13. 09. 1997/14. 09. 1997 while sleeping outside his house was hit by a truck bearing no. HR-26-GA-0430 driven by respondent no. 6 and received fatal injuries and died. The deceased was tailor by profession and was stated to have been earning Rs. 5,000/- per month at the time of his death

b)Claim petition was filed in the MACT by the legal representatives of the deceased i. e. respondent nos. 1-5 herein claiming a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/ -. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle, despite being served, failed to cause appearance, and thus were proceeded against ex parte. The petition was contested by respondent no. 3 (appellant herein ). In its written statement before the Tribunal, the appellant denied its liability on the ground that the offending truck bearing no. HR-26-GA-0430 was not having valid insurance Coverage at the time of the accident.

c)Appellant took the plea that it was not liable to pay the compensation as the cheque issued by the insured on account of payment of premium was dishonoured before the accident in question and so the insurance policy no. 300300/31/11/6300577 was cancelled under intimation to the insured. And in order to prove the same, insurance company, appellant herein, examined RW1 Sh. Manjeet singh, Administrative officer on oath who stated that cheque issued by the insured was dishonoured for the reason "insufficient funds" and letter dated 26. 06. 1997 was sent to the insured through registered AD intimating him the dishonour of the cheque and cancellation of policy issued. RW1 also produced on record original cheque return memo and attested copy of the notice dated 26. 06. 1997. He also produced the postal receipts and dispatch register and stated that the company had not received any premium of the said policy.

( 3 ) THE Learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence as well as documents placed on record held the owner (insured), driver and the insurance company jointly and severally liable to make the compensation fixed at Rs. 4,09,000/- along with interest @ 9 % per annum. As far as the plea of the insurance company that it was not liable to pay any amount to the claimants because of the cancellation of the insurance policy prior to the accident is concerned the tribunal while accepting the plea that the insurance policy stood cancelled before the accident and that the insured had also been intimated about that rejected the plea that the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. That plea was rejected by the tribunal relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in "oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Inderjit Kaur and Others" 1998 ACJ 123. However, the insurance company was given the right to recover this amount from the insured.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said award, the insurance company has come up in appeal. The only grounds for challenging the award put forth are:

a) that insurance policy for the offen