JUDGMENT :

Michael Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. No one appears for the respondent No. 2, even though the appellant's affidavit dated 23.03.2021 and the copies of the newspapers i.e. Nagaland Post and Assam Tribune, both dated 17.03.2021, show that notice had been issued to the respondent No. 2 by newspaper publication, in terms of the order dated 24.2.2021 issued by this Court. Accordingly, notice is deemed to be served on the respondent No. 2.

2. The challenge made by the appellant Insurance Company to the impugned Judgment & Award dated 25.05.2018, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 31/2016, by which compensation amounting to Rs. 5,50,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till final payment has been awarded, is on the ground that the vehicle owner had not been insured, as the cheque given for the Insurance Policy had bounced. As such, no liability could be fastened upon the appellant Insurance Company.

3. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent No. 2, who is the owner of the accident vehicle bearing Registration No. NL-01K-0991 had given a Bank of India cheque No. 000168 dated 10.07.2015, for Rs. 40,749/- for the purpose of insuring his vehicle. The cheque dated 10.07.2015 was presented by the appellant to the Axis Bank, Guwahati. However, the cheque bounced due to the reason "Exceeds Arrangement". The appellant Insurance Company thereafter intimated the dishonor of the cheque to the respondent No. 2 and to the Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Authority, Kohima vide letters dated 19.11.2015, which was sent by registered post, stating that the Insurance Policy stood cancelled since its inception due to the above reason.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accident occurred on 18.06.2016, wherein the accident vehicle (Truck) bearing Registration No. NL-01K-0991 ran over one Scooter rider namely, R. Lalthlana. The respondent No. 1, who was the wife of the deceased thereafter preferred the claim application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and consequently, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation amount indicated above.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the appellant Insurance Company had intimated to the owner of the accident vehicle (respondent No. 2) and also to the concerned Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Authority, Kohima vide letters dated 19.11.2015, with regard to the dishonor of the cheque, and the fact that the insurance policy stood cancelled, the Insurance Company's liability to indemnify third parties covered by the Insurance Policy ceased, as the policy of insurance stood cancelled, when the insured was communicated about the dishonor/bouncing of the cheque. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Laxmamma & Ors., reported in (2012) 5 SCC 234. The appellant's counsel thus prays that the impugned Judgment & Award dated 25.05.2018, passed by the learned Tribunal in MACT Case No. 31/2016, should be set aside, as the liability of paying the compensation amount now rested solely upon the owner of the vehicle, i.e., the respondent No. 2.

6. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submits that though there was no subsisting valid insurance policy between the parties at the time the accident occurred, the appellant Insurance Company should be directed to first pay the compensation amount to the claimant/respondent No. 1 and thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Pappu & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr., reported in 2018 (1) TAC 36