Abdul Rehim, J.

1. This appeal is instituted at the instance of the respondent/insurance company against the award in O.P(M.V.)No.518/2009 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vadakara. The limited challenge is against the direction issued by the Tribunal to the appellant to make payment of the amount of compensation and to recover it from the 1st respondent therein.

2. Brief history of the case is that, a person named Pocker died in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 6.4.2009. The person died while riding a bicycle was knocked down by a bus, allegedly due to the rash and negligent driving and over speed on the part of its driver, the 5th respondent herein, who was the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal. The 1st respondent before the Tribunal, who is the 4th respondent in the above appeal, was the registered owner of the vehicle. The appellant herein, who was the 3rd respondent before the Tribunal was the insurer of the vehicle. The dependents of the deceased (respondents 1 to 3 herein) filed the claim petition impleading the owner, driver and the insurer of the bus in question.

3. Before the Tribunal, the appellant filed a written statement admitting that a policy was issued with respect to the vehicle in question. But it was contended that, the said policy was cancelled with effect from the date of its inception, due to dishonour of the cheque issued for payment of the amount of premium. The Tribunal, on adjudication based on the evidence on record found that, the accident occurred to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and the owner of the vehicle being vicariously liable, has to pay the compensation awarded. On behalf of the appellant, Exts.B1 to B4 documents were produced to show that the cheque in question issued for payment of the premium was dishonoured and that the matter was intimated to the insured (owner of the bus). Ext.B4 is the office copy of the letter allegedly issued by the appellant to the insured, which is dated 16.9.2008. The contents of the said letter would indicate that, the dishonour of the cheque was intimated to the insured. It is mentioned in the letter that the contract of insurance has became void ab initio, in view of dishonour of the cheque and that the insurer is not on risk in respect of the cover note/policy/certificate of insurance. By the said letter, the insured was requested to remit the premium, in case he wants to take a fresh insurance cover. The Tribunal found that, the intimation regarding dishonour of cheque is insufficient for the insurance company to deny the liability and therefore held that the appellant is liable to indemnify the insured; but they will be having the right to recover the amount from the insured (registered owner of the vehicle). It is challenging the said finding that the present appeal is filed.

4. Contention of the appellant is that, the policy in question was issued on 18.8.2008 and the dishonour of the cheque was intimated to the insured on 16.9.2008. The accident in question occurred much after that, on 6.4.2009. Therefore the insurer cannot be held liable to make payment of the compensation. It is contended that, the contract of insurance was not in existence as on the date of the accident and the insure cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured, even with respect to the liability to any third party.

5. The issue on the point remains no more res integra. The Honourable Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Indrajit Kaur and others [1998 (1) KLT SN 23 = [1998 1 SCC 371] held that, despite the bar created by Sections 64-VB of the Insurance Act, when the insurer had issued a policy to cover the vehicle, on receipt of premium there of, by reason of Sections 147 (5) and 149 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the company become liable to indemnify the third parties in respect of the liability, which is covered through the policy; and is liable to satisfy the awards of compensation in respect thereof, not withstand