Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

This appeal has been filed by the insurer-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. as also S.M. Dixit, the then Branch Manager of the said insurance company against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mathura dated 01.04.1998 in Motor Accident Claim No. 67 of 1993 by which the said Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,10,760/- together with interest @ 15% to the claimant-respondents, arising from the accidental death of one Chhiddimal on 19.03.1993. He was knocked down by the truck insured by the present appellant while the deceased was riding a bicycle.

2. In this appeal, the appellants do not dispute occurrence of the accident or finding of the Tribunal as to the negligence of the driver of the offending truck or quantification of compensation awarded. They dispute the liability of compensation being fixed on the insurer to the exclusion of the owner of the offending truck. Also, it is contended, the rate of interest was awarded @ 15% is excessive.

3. In respect of first argument so advanced by learned counsel for the appellants it is noted, the truck bearing registration no. URR - 1187 owned by one Pappu S/o Jallo had been initially sought to be insured by the appellant. In fact against cheque payment of the premium, a cover note had been issued, made effective on 12.03.1993.

4. However, the cheque got dishonoured on 16.03.1993. Admittedly, the intimation of the cheque having been dishonoured was given to the owner of the truck namely Pappu on 18.03.1993 in writing, by the insurer. According to the Tribunal the written intimation was given to the insured/truck owner, on 18.03.1993 wherein it was made clear, in view of cheque having been dishonoured the insurance of the risk cover did not exist.

5. Again, admittedly, the accident giving rise to the instant appeal occurred on 19.03.1993 that is after intimation given to the insured of the risk cover having been withdrawn by the insurer.

6. Thereafter, on 24.03.1993 the insured deposited the premium amount in cash. The premium having been paid, the insurance cover was revived by the appellant.

7. In this regard, Sri V.C. Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant insurer contends, the accident occurred on 19.03.1993 when the insurance contract stood repudiated. In view of the fact that the insured did not inform the appellant about the accident, it was the case of material concealment and therefore no risk cover could exist, continue or arise, despite the fact of the premium amount having been paid.

8. It is also contended, even otherwise, once the accident had occurred on the date prior to payment of premium, there was no question of risk coverage arising retrospectively, inasmuch as a contract of insurance only covers an unknown or the uncertain event. It is that uncertain event or happening that forms the subject matter of contract of insurance or is central to the contract of insurance. An event that has already occurred and is therefore known to one party no longer falls it did not fall within the ambit of a risk for execution of a valid contract of insurance.

9. While the owner has been served through publication, none has appeared to oppose the instant appeal on behalf of owner.

10. In view of the above, learned counsel for appellant submits, while the liability of the insurer vis-a-vis the third party claim, as has arisen in this case, would continue on the insurer to the extent the insurer would continue to be liable to pay up the compensation amount to the third party. Yet, it must necessarily have a right to recover against the insured.

11. In this regard, Sri Samir Sharma, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Inderjit Kaur reported in (1998) 1 SCC 371. That was a case where subsequent to the cheque issued for payment of premium amount having got dishonoured, premium was paid to the insurer subsequent to intimation of contract of insurance have been repudiated upon d