Point of law: It appears that when a policy of insurance has been issued by authorised insurer, on receipt of a cheque towards the payment of a premium and such a cheque is returned dishonoured, the liability of the authorised insurer to indemnify the third parties in respect to the liability, which the policy covers subsists and it has to satisfy the award of compensation by reasons of the provisions of Sections 147 and 150 (1) of the Act of 1988, unless the policy of Insurance is cancelled by the authorized insurer and intimation of such cancellation has reached the insured before the accident.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr I.A. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Insurance Company. Also heard Mr. K. Uddin, learned counsel for the claimants.

2. All these 3(three) appeals, raises a common question of law and vide an order dated 11.11.2020, in MAC Appeal No. 125/2020, all 3(three) appeals have been tagged together.

3. In all these 3(three) appeals, there is no challenge to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Member, MACT, in the impugned Awards dated 29.11.2013 in MAC Appeal No.106/2014, dated 29.11.2013 in MAC Appeal No.124/2014 and dated 12.05.2015 in MAC Appeal No.125/2020.

4. The question which arises in all these three appeals is as to whether the appellant is liable to pay the compensation or is it the Insurance Company who is liable to pay the compensation to the third party.

5. In the back drop of the above, let us take the brief facts of the instant case.

6. The appellant in all the 3(three) appeals is the owner of a vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-10-5526 which is Tata Spacio Gold (Tata Sumo) and on 22.08.2008 on NH-54 at Marry Lo kham, the said vehicle of the appellant fell into a deep gorge about 150 feet, and in pursuance to the said accident, a police case was registered as Kawnpui P.S. Case No. 34/2008 under Sections 337 / 338 / 427/ 304 (A) of the IPC. The said offending vehicle had an Insurance Policy issued by the respondent Insurance Company bearing No. 1505062324000035 which was valid and effective allegedly from 03.10.2007 to 03.09.2008.

7. Pursuant to the accident, various claims were filed before the MACT including, MAC Case No.14/2011, MAC Case No.99/2008 and MAC Case No.1320/2008. Now let me take the individual facts of each case.

MAC APPEAL NO. 106/2014

8. The respondent nos.2 & 3 herein filed a claim petition on account of the multiple grievous injury and the loss and suffering caused on account of the accident by the offending vehicle of the appellant claiming an amount of Rs.2,70,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Thousand) only. The said claim proceedings was registered as MAC Case No. 14/2011. In the said proceedings, the respondent-Insurance Company contested by filing written statement and also took defence under Section 170 of the MV Act. The appellant as well as the driver of the offending vehicle did not appear in the said claim proceedings.

9. As many as 4(four) issues were framed of which the Issue No. 2 was in respect to as to whether the vehicle was insured with the respondent Insurance Company covering the period of the accident. The Tribunal vide an Award dated 29.11.2013 awarded an compensation amount of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand) only to the claimants as compensation with interest at the rate of Rs.9 % per annum from the date of filing of the case i.e. on 15.02.2011 till realization.

10. As regards the issue, who is liable to pay the compensation, it was held that the appellant was liable to pay the compensation as the vehicle was not covered with the Insurance Policy issued by respondent Insurance Company on the date of the accident.

MAC Appeal No. 124/2014

11. The respondent nos. 2 to 5 herein had jointly filed a claim petition on account of the death of Rostum Ali @ Rustum Uddin due to the accident which occurred on account of the offending vehicle of the appellant wherein an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) only was claimed as compensation. The said Claim Proceedings was registered and numbered as MAC Case No.99/2008. In the said claim proceedings, the respondent-Insurance Company contested by filing written statement and took the defence under Section 170 of the MV Act. The appellant herein as well as the driver of the offending vehicle did not file their written statement and the case proceeded ex-parte against them.

12. As many as 4(four) issues were framed of which Issue No. 2 relevant for the purpose of the adjudication of the instant appeal was as to whether the