Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39957 Court No. - 8 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 365 of 2011 Appellant :- Lallo Singh S/O Prithvi Singh And Ors. Respondent :- National Insurance Company Limited Thru Regional Manager And O Counsel for Appellant :- S.K. Verma Counsel for Respondent :- Jitendra Narain Mishra Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard Sri S.K. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri J.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1. Under challenge is the award dated 17.07.2010 passed in Claim Petition No. 190 of 2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Lakhimpur Kheri acting as MACT wherein in a death case, a sum of Rs. 4,25,000/- along with 6% interest has been awarded in favour of the claimants-respondent nos. 2 to 12. The sole question before this Court as raised by learned counsel for the appellants is as to whether the direction given by the MACT in its award dated 17.07.2010 of pay and recover could be challenged by the appellants (who are the owners of the offending vehicle). The learned counsel for the appellant clearly states that apart from the directions regarding pay and recover, he does not assail any other finding. In light of the aforesaid, the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants is that the vehicle in question was insured with the respondent no. 1 for the period 01.06.2004 to 31.05.2005. It is urged that he premium of the said insurance was paid by the appellants through Cheque dated 31.05.2004. It is the case of the appellant that, though, the said cheque was dishonored, however, the appellants did not receive any information from the respondent no. 1, hence, he could not know whether his vehicle was insured or not, however, he harboured reasonable thought that once his cheque had been accepted by the respondent no. 1, the vehicle was insured and therefore on the date of the accident i.e. 19.01.2005 which is within the period for which the Insurance Policy was in effect, the entire amount ought to have been paid by the insurance Company and the direction granted for pay and recover was bad in the eyes of law. The aforesaid submission is refuted by learned counsel for the appellants. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record. Since the only issue relates as to whether the vehicle in question was insured on the given date or nor and that too falls within the narrow compass of admitted facts, it would reveal that admittedly the cheque dated 31.05.2004 was dishonored. Even assuming, if the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is accepted at its face value, nevertheless, he could not dispute the fact that once his cheque was dishonored, it is his bankers who would return the cheque to him. It would have been a different case where the cheque was dishonored and soon thereafter the appellants would have made the payment of the premium and had the accident occurred within that time, the issue as to whether the Insurance Company informed the appellants or not could have been considered by the Court in the limited circumstances. However, what is relevant to notice that it is an admitted case that during the entire period i.e. 01.06.2004 to 31.05.2005, the appellants never paid any premium. Whether the cheque was dishonored and he had the information from the Insurance Company pales into insignificance because there is no material to indicate that any point of time, the appellants made any endevour to find out from his banker, nor there is any averment or evidence to the effect that even his bankers had not informed the appellant that his cheque had been dishonored. There is no diligence shown by the appellants to indicate that in case if he had paid the premium, he would have been aware of the fact that some amount could have been debited from his account corresponding to the payment of premium which has also not been done. The appellant has miserably failed to support his contention both before the Claims Tribunal as well as before this Court, accordingly, this Court does not find that there is any error committed by the Claims Tribunal while granting the said liberty to the Insurance Company to recover, accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed. The statutory amount deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal to be released in favour of the Insurance Company who shall be at liberty of recover the remaining from the appellant in accordance with law. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 Asheesh/- Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench