IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.379 of 2002 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 3, Middleeton Street Calcutta through its Duly constituted Attorney and Authorized Signatory Sanjay Kumar, A.O. Regional Office 4th Floor Sone Bhawan, Patna. -------(Opp. Party No.4)--- Appellant. Versus 1. SMT.GULABI DEVI, wife of Nageshwar Mahto (claimant no.10 2. Nageshwar Mahto, son of Late Charitar Mahto (claimant no.2) both resident of village Ladaura P.O. Pakri Ismail P.S. Kurhani District – Muzaffarpur. 3. Birendra yadav, son of brijlal Yadav, 32, Tolly Gunje, Circular Road, P.S. Behala District 24 pargana West Bengal (Opp. Party no.1) 4. New India Assurance Company Ltd. through its Divisional Manager Club Road at and post Muzaffarpur, District – Muzaffarpur. (Opp. Party. No.2) 5. Tapan Kar, son of Tarapada Kar 21/1 Mahendragara, Yadavpur Calcutta, West Bengal (Opp. Party no.3). -----------Respondents. ------- For the respondent : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Adv. Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Jha, Adv. 11. 23.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent 1 to 3 in one set and learned counsel for the respondent no.4. But none appeared on behalf of respondent no.5. This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 11.07.2002 and award dated 20.07.2002 Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal Cum 6th Additional District Judge, Muzaffarpur, in Claim Case No. 29 of 1999. This is a case of collusion between - 2 - two vehicles one under valid insurance by respondent no.4 another was though insured by appellant, but question was raised regarding validity of the insurance at the relevant period of accident on the ground that premium paid by the owner against the insurance through cheque was bounced and due intimation to this effect was given to the owner. Further stating that the policy stands cancelled. There is no dispute as regard to facts of the case, there is no need to reproduce anything. As it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that all the related documents showing bouncing of cheque, intimation to owner were thereon but, on some technical ground, the court below did not consider and directed the appellant to share the liability to the extent of 50%. Rest 50% was awarded against respondent no.4, which has already been paid. As it further appears from the impugned order that this is admitted position that cheque through which premium - 3 - was paid to the appellant by owner of vehicle was bounced and that too much before the accident and due intimation had already been given to the owner i.e. also before the accident taking place. After some argument, learned counsel representing the claimant respondent 1 to 3, submitted that they are very poor fellows. Rs. 25,000/- as ad interim compensation under section 140 of the Act has already been paid by the appellant and if the statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited with the appeal by the appellant is paid to the respondents 1 to 3, they shall no claim any other amount against award from the owner or appellant, just to avoid pains of litigation and difficulty in realizing the amount from the owner. Finding the submissions of respondent nos. 1 and 2 reasonable. Learned counsel for the appellant was asked to consider it sympathetically. Learned counsel hesitated in accepting the suggestion, however, taking into consideration the interest of justice, long pendency of the appeal for about 8 - 4 - years and the accident taking place on 12.12.1998, it is directed that the statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited with the appeal be remitted to the court below through demand draft in the names of respondent nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the claimants towards payment of compensation against vehicle in question i.e. vehicle no. WB03- 6721 owned by respondent no.5 Tapan Kar. It is further made clear that the appellant, if so wishes, may recover the amount of Rs. 25,000/- paid as ad interim compensation under section 140 of the Act and the statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- which is being paid to the claimants, by orders of this court, from the owner respondent no.5 since the vehicle was not covered under valid insurance. With the above observations and direction, without any further adjudication on merit, this appeal stands disposed of. Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)