MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2008 ******** Against the Judgment dated 02.7.2007 and Award dated 25.8.2007 passed in claim case no. 86 of 2000 /40 of 2000 by the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal-cum- 6th Addl. District Judge, Patna. ****** THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. PATNA, P.O. EXHIBITION ROAD, P.S. GANDHI MAIDAN PATNA THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY DR. ANIL KUMAR MALLICK DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY REGIONAL OFFICE 6TH FLOOR B.S.F.C. BUILDING FRASER ROAD PATNA …………….. (Opp. Party no.2) …….Appellant Versus 1. MAMTA SINHA W/O LATE SANJAY KUMAR ……… (Claimant No. 1) 2. KUMAR RAHUL S/O LATE SANJAY KUMAR ……… (Minor….. under the guardianship of his mother claimant No. 1 ……… (Claimant No. 2) BOTH R/O VILLAGE KAJICHAK (DHANAMA) P.S. SAMERA DISTRICT NALANDA 3. RAM DHANI RAI S/O NAMDHARI RAI R/O MOHALLA RIKABGANJ, P.O. & P.S. MALSALAMI DISTRICT- PATNA ………………. (Opp. Party no.1)……… Respondents ************ For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi Adv. : Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh Adv. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Raj Shekhar Adv. For the Respondent No. 1 &2 : Mr. Ram Chandra Prasad Adv. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant is aggrieved with the judgment and award dated 2.7.2007 and 25.8.2007 respectively passed by the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal Cum 6th Addl. District Judge, Patna, in Claim Case No. 86 of 2000/ 40 of 2000, by which the claimant has been allowed compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of lodging the compensation claim till the date of realization. 2. The appellant is aggrieved since admittedly the policy which had been taken on 21.2.2000 subsisted till 20.3.2001 but the cheque given on 27.3.2000 in favour of the insurance company bounced on 30.3.2000 and, therefore, it has been contended that there was no policy is existence on the date of the accident i.e. on 27.3.2000. Therefore, the appellant was not legally bound to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. 3. On the other hand the respondents contend that the risk covered of the third party are different from that of the first party and it matters little to the claimant as to whether it was the Insurance company or the owner of the offending vehicle who compensated the claimant. 4. Further submission is that since there was no intimation that the policy had been cancelled before the accident and the same was done on 30.3.2000 i.e. after the accident, the appellant was bound to indemnify the owner. 5. On going through the documents and hearing rival contentions, there is no doubt that the claimant as a third party had a claim which was different from that which the owner as first party was entitled to and therefore, I find no merit in the appeal. 6. However, since the cheque given by the owner of the offending vehicle had bounced, the owner cannot claim an absolute immunity from the liability to compensate the claimant. In view of such, the appellant would be at liberty to pursue his remedy of recovering the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle in accordance with law. 7. The appeal is disposed off with the aforesaid observations. 8. The statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- shall be remitted to the court below immediately for disbursement to the claimants. The Lower Court record be also returned to the court concerned immediately. Patna High Court, ( Anjana Prakash, J. ) Patna Dated the 24th February, 2011 NAFR/ Fahad.