( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 347 OF 2010 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office Central Fule Market, second Floor, Near Tower, Dist.Jalgaon Through it's Divisional Office at Aurangabad, Adalat Road,Aurangabad. .. Appellant Versus Shamshadbi w/o Majeed Khan, Age: 49 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Shahunagar Piprala Road, Kacchi Chal, At Post Tq. Jalgaon & Ors. .. Respondents ... Mr. A.S. Deshpande, Advocate h/f Mr. B.B. Kulkarni, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 8. ... CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 20.04.2010 P.C. :- With the consent of parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing at admission stage, in view of the limited issue raised. This appeal is directed against the order of ( 2 ) payment of compensation under No Fault Liability, passed by the Member, M.A.C.T. Jalgaon in M.A.C.P. No.440/2006 below application Exhibit-6, thereby directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay amount of Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. It is the case of the present respondent Nos. 1 to 8 that deceased Majeed Khan alongwith Shaikh Asif were travelling from Dharangaon to Erandol on motor cycle on 29-04-2006 at 10-30 p.m. At that time, within limits of Toligaon, Truck bearing No.GJ/1/X-3637 was parked on the middle of the road without any parking lights. The motor cycle dashed against the said truck from behind and both died. Respondent No. 1 is widow and respondent Nos.2 to 7 are children of deceased Majeed Khan. Respondent No. 9 is the owner of the truck and the present appellant is Insurance Company. Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 filed M.A.C.P. No.440/2006 in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon for compensation. Therein, the application Exhibit-6 was given for compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Being aggrieved by the order passed thereof, by the M.A.C.T. Jalgaon on 27-08-2009, this appeal is filed. ( 3 ) 3. The main ground in this appeal is that the cheque of premium issued by respondent No.9 in favour of the appellant was dishonoured and thereafter notice was given to respondent No.9 for cancellation of policy and therefore the appellant company is not liable. The trial Court observed in Para-12 after referring to the ratio laid down in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Inderjit Kaur and others, AIR 1998 Supreme Court, 588 that even though the insurance company has cancelled its policy, deceased being third party insurance company is liable to pay compensation. Even otherwise, there is no evidence to show that insurance company has cancelled policy by giving intimation to RTO and by observing all formalities necessary for such cancellation of policy. 4. Heard Advocates of both side in detail. There is no dispute that while deciding application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no evidence is led. The contention is taken in W.S. about dishonour of the cheque and consequent cancellation of policy will have to be proved by leading ( 4 ) evidence and concerned documents such as dishonour of cheque or cancellation of policy and intimation to the owner etc., will have to be proved. Those documents are not admissible in evidence without formal proof. In the circumstances, the order of granting compensation amount under No Fault Liability against both owner and insurer of the truck, cannot be said to be illegal. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed. 5. The defence taken by the Insurance Company is kept open for decision in the main petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] sut/APR10/fa347.10