HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 212 of 2001 AND FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 213 of 2001 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Shri Satyajit Banerji, learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondents. 2. These first appeals from order have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgement and order dated February 13, 2001 passed by the Additional District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kheri (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.80 of 1998 (Kripa Shanker Pandey and others v. Ramesh Chandra and others) along with Claim Petition No.81 of 1998 (Pratap Shanker Pandey and others v. Ramesh Chandra and others). 3. Shri Satyajit Banerji, learned counsel for the appellant submits that two persons namely Saroj Pandey and Rajesh Kumar Tripathi were travelling Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Alka Verma, Satyajit Banerji Counsel for Respondent(s) : S.K. Srivastava Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Alka Verma, Satyajit Banerji Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shivendra Pratap Singh, Sushil Kumar National Insurance Co. Ltd. .....Appellant(s) Pratap Shanker Pandey And Others .....Respondent(s) The National Insurance Co. Ltd. .....Appellant(s) Kripa Shanker Pandey And Others .....Respondent(s) on a motorcycle, which was driven by Rajesh Kumar Tripathi and Saroj Pandey was a pillion rider. While they were standing on left side of the road, a truck bearing no.DNC/0365 coming from Nighasan side had hit them and as a result of which both of them died on the spot. Thereafter two claim petitions bearing Claim Petition No.80 of 1998 (Kripa Shanker Pandey and others v. Ramesh Chandra and others) and Claim Petition No.81 of 1998 (Pratap Shanker Pandey and others v. Ramesh Chandra and others) were filed by the family members of the deceased. After appreciation of evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- to each of the victims along with interest of 10% per annum vide order dated February 13, 2001. The same has been assailed by the Insurance Company by means of the instant appeals. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the premium amount of the insurance policy was paid by cheque, which was dishonoured. Therefore, there was no valid insurance policy. He further submits that since there was no valid insurance policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. In fact cover note given to the insurer was also cancelled and the cancellation notice was sent to the insurer on January 06, 1998 by registered receipt. 5. To buttress his argument, he placed reliance upon the judgement of Rajasthan High Court passed in The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Smt. Kulsun Bano and others; Civil Misc. Appeal (CMA) No.310 of 2006, wherein it has been held as follows: "We, therefore, agree with the opinion of the High Court" In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Laxmamma and others reported in AIR 2012 SC 2817, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the question whether the Insurance Company (insurer) is absolved of its obligations to the third party under the policy of insurance because the cheque given by the owner of the vehicle towards the premium amount got dishonoured and subsequent to the accident, the insurer cancelled the policy of insurance and while considering the question, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :- FAFO No. 212 of 2001 2 "In our view, the legal position is this: where the policy of insurance is issued by an authorized insurer on receipt of cheque towards payment of premium and such cheque is returned dishonoured, the liability of authorized insurer to indemnify third parties in respect of the liability which that policy covered subsists and it has to satisfy award of compensation by reason of the provisions of Sections 147(5) and 149(1) of the M.V. Act unless the policy of insurance is cancelled by the authorized insurer and intimation of such cancellation has reached the insured before the accident. In other words, where the policy of insurance is issued by an authorized insurer to cover a vehicle on receipt of the cheque paid towards premium and the cheque gets dishonored and before the accident of the vehicle occurs, such insurance company cancels the policy of insurance and sends intimation thereof to the owner, the insurance company's liability to indemnify the third parties which that policy covered ceases and the insurance company is not liable to satisfy awards of compensation in respect thereof." 6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal of the record including impugned judgement and order, it appears that the Tribunal has dealt with this issue and specifically recorded a finding that though the cheque for insurance policy was dishonoured, but the premium of the same has been paid by the insurer in cash with the result that it cannot be said that the premium for the insurance policy was not paid and the policy was not valid. 7. In view of above, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgement and order dated February 13, 2001 passed by the Tribunal in Claim Petition No.80 of 1998 (Kripa Shanker Pandey and others v. Ramesh Chandra and others) along with Claim Petition No.81 of 1998 (Pratap Shanker Pandey and others v. Ramesh Chandra and others). FAFO No. 212 of 2001 3 8. In light of the same, instant appeals are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. November 7, 2025 Anupam S/- FAFO No. 212 of 2001 4 (Prashant Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench