JUDGMENT : M.B. SNEHALATHA, J. 1. These appeals have been preferred from the award passed in O.P(MV) Nos.751/2013 and 752/2013 on the files of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’]. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal as claimants and respondents 1 to 3. 3. MACA Nos.2183 of 2020 and 2299 of 2020 have been preferred by the 3 rd respondent/United India Insurance Company Ltd in O.P.(MV) Nos.751/2013 & 752/2013 challenging the award passed by the Tribunal to the extent to which it directs the 3 rd respondent to pay the award amount in the said two O.Ps. 4. MACA Nos.215 of 2022 and 2316 of 2022 have been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in the above original petitions challenging the directions therein that after deposit of the award amount by the 3 rd respondent/insurance company, it can be recovered from the 1 st respondent. 5. O.P No.751/2013 was filed by the claimants who are the wife and children of the victim Xavier, who met with a motor vehicle accident on 06.01.2013. O.P(MV) No.752/2013 was filed by another injured in the said accident. The case of the claimants in the two OPs is that on 06.01.2013 while the Claimant in O.P(MV) No.752/2013 was riding a motorcycle with victim Xavier, as a pillion rider through National Highway at Kuthiyathodu, a tourist bus bearing registration No.KL-23-A-1400 hit on the motorcycle and as a result of which, the claimant in O.P(MV) No.752/2013 who was the rider of the motorcycle and the pillion rider Xavier sustained grievous injuries. Though both the injured were taken to hospital, the victim Xavier succumbed to the injuries on the same day. Accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus/2nd respondent. The 1 st respondent is the RC owner and the 3 rd respondent is the insurer of the offending bus. 6. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 in both the O.Ps remained absent and they were set ex-parte. 7. The 3 rd respondent/insurance company filed a written statement denying the existence of the policy. The 1 st respondent is the RC owner and the 3 rd respondent is the insurer of the offending bus. 6. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 in both the O.Ps remained absent and they were set ex-parte. 7. The 3 rd respondent/insurance company filed a written statement denying the existence of the policy. Their contention was that though they issued policy in respect of the offending bus bearing registration No.KL-23-A-1400, the said policy was subsequently cancelled from the date of issuance since the cheque issued by the insurer towards insurance premium was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the 1 st respondent/RC owner. Thus, according to the 3 rd respondent, there was no valid policy in respect of the offending bus as on the date of the accident and, therefore, the 3 rd respondent/insurance company has no liability to indemnify the registered owner and is not liable to pay any compensation. 8. After trial, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.15,14,050/- in O.P.(MV) No.751/2013 and Rs.2,58,660/- in O.P.(MV) No.752/2013 as compensation with interest at 9% per annum each with a direction to the 3 rd respondent/insurance company to deposit the compensation amount and with a further clause that after satisfying the award amount, the 3 rd respondent/insurance company is entitled to recover the award amount from the 1 st respondent/owner of the offending bus. 9. The 3 rd respondent/insurance company has preferred these appeals challenging the direction to deposit the award amount on the ground that as they had cancelled the policy, there was no valid policy as on the date of the accident and therefore, they are not liable to pay the award amount. 10. Respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, have preferred appeals contending that the cancellation of the policy had not been intimated to the registered owner of the vehicle by the insurance company and therefore, the direction in the award of the Tribunal to recover the amount from the 1 st respondent is untenable. According to them, the 3 rd respondent insurance company alone is liable to pay the award amount and the order to pay and recover is wrong. 11. The accident is admitted. It also stands proved that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2 nd respondent, who was the driver of the offending bus. According to them, the 3 rd respondent insurance company alone is liable to pay the award amount and the order to pay and recover is wrong. 11. The accident is admitted. It also stands proved that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2 nd respondent, who was the driver of the offending bus. There is no dispute regarding the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The only dispute is with respect to the direction issued by the Tribunal to the 3rd respondent/insurance company to pay the award amount and thereafter to recover the same from the 1 st respondent/registered owner of the offending vehicle. 12. To substantiate the contention of the 3 rd respondent/insurance company that the policy earlier issued to the offending bus was cancelled, the Manager of the 3 rd respondent was examined as RW1 and Exts.B1 to B7 were marked. The specific contention of the 3 rd respondent/insurance company is that the cheque issued by the owner of the vehicle towards premium was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the 1 st respondent. Ext.B1 is the cheque which was dishonoured, and Ext.B2 is the memo issued by the bank. According to RW1, upon receipt of dishonour memo from the Bank, intimation was sent to the 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle. Ext.B3 is the copy of the intimation addressed to the RTO, and Ext.B4 is the copy of the cancelled policy. RW1 has further testified that subsequently, on 08.01.2013 a new policy was taken by the 1 st respondent in respect of the said vehicle. Ext.B6 is the said policy. 13. The evidence on record would show that, though the3rd respondent/insurance company had issued a policy in respect of the offending bus, the same was cancelled due to dishonour of Ext.B1 cheque, and such cancellation was duly intimated to the policyholder prior to the accident. 14. The 1 st respondent, the owner of the vehicle, has no case that there were sufficient funds in her account to honour Ext.B1 cheque issued towards the premium amount. Exts.B1 and B2 would show that the cheque issued by the 1 st respondent towards insurance premium was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in her account. So there was sufficient and valid reason for the 3 rd respondent/insurance company to cancel the policy which was earlier issued. The accident occurred on 06.01.2013. Exts.B1 and B2 would show that the cheque issued by the 1 st respondent towards insurance premium was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in her account. So there was sufficient and valid reason for the 3 rd respondent/insurance company to cancel the policy which was earlier issued. The accident occurred on 06.01.2013. The evidence on record would show that immediately thereafter, i.e., on 07.02.2013, the 1 st respondent took a fresh policy. This clearly indicates that she was aware of the cancellation of the earlier policy. She cannot, therefore, plead ignorance regarding the cancellation of the policy in respect of the offending bus bearing Registration No. KL-23-A-1400. 15. In paragraph 32 of the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal, there is a specific direction that the 3 rd respondent shall satisfy the award amount and thereafter recover the same from the 1 st respondent/insured. 16. However, in Issue No.7 of the impugned award instead of mentioning the insured as the 1 st respondent, his rank has been erroneously stated as the 2 nd respondent. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal, except to clarify that after getting the award amount, the 3 rd respondent is entitled to recover the award amount from the 1 st respondent in the O.P/owner of the vehicle. 17. The learned counsel for the claimant pointed out that the restriction in clause 6 of the impugned award to deposit the amount in the name of 1 st petitioner/widow of the deceased in a bank for a period of 10 years causes much hardship to her as she is in acute financial strategy. Taking into account the fact that 6 years havesss elapsed after the passing of the award, this Court found that the condition No.6 to deposit the award in the name of the 1 st petitioner/widow for a period of 10 years is unnecessary. Hence, that condition is lifted. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed