JUDGMENT : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1.The claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) challenging the impugned award dated 27.06.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Koriya, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 62/2019, by which the Insurance Company exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation amount to the claimants/appellants herein. 2.Mr. A.L. Singroul, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that the Claims Tribunal ought to have invoked the principle of pay and recover by fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company/respondent No.2 herein and while granting compensation and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 3.Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that the dishonour of cheque and cancellation of the policy were intimated to the appellant much prior to the date of the accident, therefore, the principle of pay and recover has rightly been not invoked by the Claims Tribunal. 4.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records precisely. 5.In the instant case, the insurance policy was issued by the Insurance Company of Truck bearing Registration No. CG-15-AC-4002 for the period from 05.02.2019 to 4.02.2020 vide Ex.D/1 for which the payment was made through cheque vide Ex.D/2C on 05.02.2019, which was dishonored on 07.02.2019 vide Ex.D/3C and due to which the insurance policy was cancelled. The aforesaid information was given to owner of the vehicle Intezar Khan, through registered notice dated 11.02.2019 vide Ex.D/4C, which was received by him on 12.02.2019 vide Ex.D/7C, and except that, Insurance Company has also informed the aforesaid fact to the R.T.O. Ambikapur through registered notice dated 11.02.2019 vide Ex.D/5C, which was received by the RTO Ambikapur on 12.02.2019 vide Ex.P/6C. Entry of cancellation of insurance policy/dishonoured cheque was made by the Insurance Company in its postal register on 11.02.2019 vide Ex.D/8C and same was informed to the RTO Ambikapur vide Ex.D/9C. However, as per the case of the claimants, the accident was occurred on 14.04.2019, meaning thereby, the policy has been cancelled much prior to the date of the accident i.e. after two months of cancellation of the policy the accident was occurred, and the cancellation of the policy had already been informed to owner of the vehicle Intezar Khan vide Ex.D/4C. In this regard, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of United India Insurance Company Limited v. and other , (2012) 5 SCC 234 may be noticed herein, in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held as under:- “26. In our view, the legal position is this: where the policy of insurance is issued by an authorised insurer on receipt of cheque towards the payment of premium and such a cheque is returned dishonoured, the liability of the authorised insurer to indemnify the third parties in respect of the liability which that policy covered subsists and it has to satisfy the award of compensation by reason of the provisions of Sections 147(5) and 149(1) of the MV Act unless the policy of insurance is cancelled by the authorised 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 authorised insurer to cover a vehicle on receipt of the cheque paid towards premium and the cheque gets dishonoured 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.The principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of the Laxmamma (supra) has recently been followed in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited v. Sunita Devi and Others , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1647 in which it has been held as under:- “5 . In Deddappa (supra) , Deddappa v. Branch Manger, National Insurance Company Limited this Court addressed very point interpretating the provisions of Section 147(5), 149(1) and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in relation to the liability of the insurance company vis-à-vis the third party in the eventuality of rescindment of the insurance contract on account of non-payment of premium because of bouncing of the cheque issued towards premium amount. In that case, the cheque dated 15.10.1997 was dishonoured on 21.10.1995 due to insufficient funds, upon which the respondent-Insurance Company cancelled the policy and informed the vehicle owner as well as the RTO. 5.1. In that case, the cheque dated 15.10.1997 was dishonoured on 21.10.1995 due to insufficient funds, upon which the respondent-Insurance Company cancelled the policy and informed the vehicle owner as well as the RTO. 5.1. This Court held that the contract of insurance stood rescinded due to failure of consideration and intimation to that effect given to the parties concerned. However, the Court in exercise of its [(2008) 2 SCC 234] jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, directed the insurance company to compensate the appellant and to recover amount from the vehicle owner. 5.2. The subsequent judgment in United India Insurance Company Limited (supra), laid down the very principle that the statutory liability of the insurer to indemnify the third parties would subsist unless the insurance policy was cancelled and the intimation of such cancelation had reached the insured before the accident. In this judgment also, this Court reiterated the “pay and recovery” principle. 5.3. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is to be noticed that the accident took place on 22.08.2025. The cheque towards premium was dishonoured and intimation was given vide letter dated 04.05.2005. Therefore, there was a gap of more than three months from the date when the insurance policy was liable to be treated as cancelled and the date when the accident took place. 5.4. The High Court in its judgment, while confirming the judgment and award of the Claims Tribunal, appears to have taken the view that the insurer having admittedly issued the insurance police against third party risk, the rights of third party would not get affected when the policy was issued and in that light the insurer must satisfy the award in favour of the third party, by protecting the rights of the insurer to allow it the right of recovery. 5.5. 5.5. From the facts on record and more particularly in view of the decisions of this Court in Deddappa (supra) and United India Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) it could be immediately seen that even as this Court has underscored the proposition that cancellation of insurance policy issued in favour of the third party for covering third party risk, because of bouncing of cheque for premium or non-payment of premium, would in law, absolve the insurer from liability to pay the compensation, once the insurer has intimated the cancellation to the parties concerned, in the final directions issued, the Court thought it fit to direct the insurance company to make payment of compensation to the claimants and thereafter to permit it to recover the same. 5.6. It is to be noted at this stage that pursuant to order dated 27.07.2007 passed by the court in the present proceedings, the appellant-Insurance Company has already deposited one-half of the total awarded compensation with interest and that the claimants have withdrawn the said amount. 5.7. Depositing of the compensation amount by the Insurance Company as above could be well said to be conforming the law laid down by this Court in Deddappa (supra) and in United India Insurance Company (supra). The Insurance Company has deposited the 50% amount of compensation with interest as awarded, the same is also released and the respondent-claimants have received them, in larger interest of justice to all parties, no recovery deserves to be permitted for the said amount deposited and withdrawn from the claimants. It would be not only harsh but would amount to setting the clock back.” 7.Coming to the facts of the present case in light of principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, it is quite vivid that the owner of the vehicle obtained a policy from the Insurance Company/insurer for the period from 05.02.2019 to 04.02.2020 vide Ex.D/1 and gave the cheque vide Ex.D/2C which was dishonoured on 07.02.2019 vide Ex.D/3C and the insurance policy was cancelled, thereafter, information of the same was given to owner of the vehicle Intezar Khan through notice on 11.02.2019 vide Ex.D/4C, which was duly received by him vide Ex.D/7C, and RTO Ambikapur was also informed through registered notice vide Ex.D/5C, which was received by RTO vide Ex.D/6C and the accident was occurred on 14.04.2019. As such, the cancellation of the policy was done much prior to the accident i.e. two months prior to the accident, and the same has been informed to owner as well as the RTO Ambikapur. In view of the above, the Claims Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability by not invoking the principle of pay and recover. 8.In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal and accordingly, it is dismissed . No order as to cost(s).