HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1102 of 1999 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard Shri Achintya Kumar holding brief of Shri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company. Shri P.K. Pandey, learned counsel for respondent/claimant is present. 2. Despite various efforts to serve notice upon the owner of the offending vehicle, the same could not be served upon him as he was not found on the given address. Accordingly, the service of notice upon the respondent- owner is held sufficient. 3. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment dated 28.9.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Meerut in M.A.C.P. No.347 of 1997 (Faimuddin vs. Jeet Singh & Ors.) whereby the claim petition was allowed and an award of Rs.1,67,000/- together with 12% interest has been passed in favour of the claimant-respondent and that the entire liability of the award was fastened upon the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimant. 4. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that liability to satisfy the award has been fastened upon the Insurance Company, whereas the offending vehicle was not insured on the date of accident. He submitted that the owner of the offending vehicle had submitted Cheque No. 009413 dated 07.05.1996 issued by Allahabad Bank in order to deposit the premium of the insurance policy. However, the said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds and the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Arvind Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Manoj Kumar Singh, Pradhumn Kumar Pandey, V.S.Chauhan The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. .....Appellant(s) Faimuddin And Others .....Respondent(s) said fact was duly proved by DW-1 N.S. Neemwal, Branch Manager of Allahabad Bank, Bindapur, Delhi. It was submitted that this fact is sufficient to substantiate that the offending vehicle was not insured on the date of accident. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment. 6. It is very much evident that the accident had taken place on 16.03.1997. The cheque issued by the owner on 07.05.1996 was dishonoured, regarding which information through registered post was sent by the Insurance Company to the owner on 13.09.1996. It is, therefore, evident that the offending vehicle was not insured on the date of accident. Hence, the Insurance Company could not be held liable to satisfy the award. 7. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified to the extent that the compensation awarded in favour of the claimant shall be payable by the owner / respondent No. 2. 8. Any amount which has been paid by the Insurance Company towards satisfaction of the award, shall be recoverable by it after adopting proper legal course. 9. The amount, which is still in the custody of the Tribunal in the form of FDRs etc., deposited by the Insurance Company for satisfaction of the award, shall be returned to the Insurance Company by the concerned Tribunal. 10. The amount so released in favour of the claimant shall also be recoverable by the Insurance Company from the owner of the offending vehicle. 11. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. September 23, 2026 SK FAFO No. 1102 of 1999 2 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad