Honble Amitava Lala, J.—All the aforesaid appeals are analogously heard at the stage of admission on the informal papers as agreed upon by the contesting parties. The sole issue is whether the insurance company/companies is/are liable to pay compensation to the third party claimant/s when respective cheque/s on account of premium to be paid by the owner/s to them is/are dishonoured.

2. In FAFO No. 646 of 2008 it has been contended by the Insurance Company that the cheque of the premium was issued by the owner on 2nd September, 2003 covering the period between 4th September, 2003 to 3rd September, 2004. The cheque was returned by the Bank to the Insurance Company on account of insufficient fund in the Account of the owner. Accident took place on 4th March, 2004.

3. In FAFO No. 924 of 2008 it has been contended by the Insurance Company that the cheque of the premium was issued by the owner on 29th April, 2005 covering the period between 1st May, 2005 to 30th April, 2006. The cheque was returned by the Bank on 11th May, 2005 to the Insurance Company on account of insufficient fund in the Account of the owner. The owner was informed by letter dated 24th May, 2005. The accident occurred on 18th February, 2006. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

4. In FAFO No. 1467 of 2008 it has been contended by the Insurance Company that the cheque of the premium was issued by the owner on 31st May,1996 covering the period between 31st May,1996 to 30th May,1997. The cheque was returned by the Bank on 18th June, 1996 to the Insurance Company on account of insufficient fund in the Account of the owner. Accident took place on 14th October, 1996.

5. From the judgments and orders impugned hereunder we find that the Insurance Companies are not fastened with the liability. It has been directed to pay as stop gap arrangement and recover the amount from the owner. The owners in all the appeals did not appear in the proceeding before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

6. The Insurance Companies contended before this Court that since the cheques have been dishonoured, there was no insurance coverage of the owner for the period of accident, therefore, they are not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants even as stop gap arrangement.

7. According to us, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is a beneficial piece of legislation. Such Act provides requirement of insurance coverage. Sections 146 and 147 of the Act speaks as follows :

“146. Necessity for insurance against third party risk.—(1) No person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of this Chapter :

[Provided that in the case of a vehicle carrying, or meant to carry, dangerous or hazardous goods, there shall also be a policy of insurance under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of 1991)].

Explanation.—A person driving a motor vehicle merely as a paid employee, while there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle no such policy as is required by this sub-section, shall not be deemed to act in contravention of the sub-section unless he knows or has reason to believe that there is no such policy in force.

(2) Sub-section (1) shall not apply to any vehicle owned by the Central Government or a State Government and used for Government purposes unconnected with any commercial enterprise.

(3) The appropriate Government may, by order, exempt from the operation of sub-section (1) any vehicle owned by any of the following authorities,

namely :

(a) the Central Government or a State Government, if the vehicle is used for Government purposes connected with any commercial enterprise;

(b) any local authority;

(c) any State transport undertaking :

Provided that no such order shal