HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1309 of 2008 Date: 01-7-2011 Between National Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Having its Branch Office in Peddakapu Layout, Tirupati Town, Chittoor district, A.P. … Appellant/Respondent No.2 and G.Sujatha, Rep. by her next friend/father G.Subramanyam … Respondent/Petitioner Hamad Bin Ali … Respondent/Respondent No.1 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1309 of 2008 Judgment: Being aggrieved with the order and decree dated 12-02-2008 in M.V.O.P.No.507 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor district the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed. 2. The appellant herein is the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company before the tribunal below. After considering the entire evidence on record, the tribunal below awarded an amount of Rs.61,000/- against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation to the injured. Being aggrieved, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the Insurance Company mainly urging that the award of compensation granted in favour of the claimant is not sustainable and that the offending vehicle has no valid insurance coverage as on the date of accident as the owner of the offending vehicle has not paid the premium and the alleged premium paid by him through cheque was dishonoured by the bank on the ground that funds are insufficient, therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the compensation. 3. Now, the point for consideration is -- whether the order of the tribunal below fastening the liability against the Insurance Company is sustainable ? 4 . Point:- As seen from the impugned order, the factum of accident is not disputed. As per the contention of the Insurance Company, originally the offending vehicle stands in the name of one Viswanath Borker and that Ex.B-1 policy was issued by it. A perusal of Ex.B-1 policy shows that the vehicle had valid insurance coverage from 21-8-2004 to 20-8-2005. The alleged accident was occurred on 08-12-2004. Therefore, it is very clear that the policy was in force as on the date of accident. 5. It is the case of the Insurance Company that Viswanath Borker transferred the vehicle in the name of the 2nd respondent herein-owner of the lorry. In proof of the same, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B-2 transfer endorsement was marked. R.W.1 in his evidence stated that the cheque for Rs.3,731/- being the premium amount paid by Viswanath Borker was dishonoured and that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. If really the cheque given by Viswanath Borker was dishonoured by the bank, it is not known as to why Ex.B-1 policy was transferred in the name of the 2nd respondent herein-owner of the lorry. 6. As seen from Exs.B-1 and B-2, it is very clear that the policy issued by the Insurance Company was in force by the date of accident and in Ex.B-2 it is clearly mentioned that the 2nd respondent herein is the owner of the vehicle. The transfer endorsement Ex.B-2 clearly reads that the offending vehicle had valid insurance coverage as on the date of accident. If the insurance people realized about bouncing of cheque under Ex.B-3 they ought to have taken steps for cancellation of the said policy Ex.B-1. Without taking any such steps, it cannot be now said that Ex.B-1 policy has no valid coverage against the offending vehicle, is of no consequence. 7. Therefore, in any view of the matter, the finding of the tribunal below on that score is sustainable. 8. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order passed by the tribunal below. No costs. ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 01st July, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1309 of 2008 01st July, 2011.