11. As stated above, since the cancellation of policy issued in respect of the offending Dumper has been proved through the evidence of OPW-1 coupled with Ext.A, and intimation of such cancellation of policy has been duly communicated to the insurer and the registering authority as established through Ext.F, F/1, G and G/1, no merit is seen in favour of the claimant for extending the liability on the insurerAppellant. It is reiterated here that the owner, who is the most competent person to speak about issuance of a fresh policy, if any, in respect of the offending Dumper has not come to contest the case, but remained silent. The materials produced on record being clearly established about cancellation of policy due to dishonour of the cheque paid towards premium amount and the intimation of cancellation having been duly intimated to the insurer as well as the registering authority, the direction of learned Tribunal to the Appellant-insurance company to indemnify the compensation amount is set aside. It is held that the Appellant-insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the offending Dumper and he is absolved of the same. However, it is open for the claimant to realize respective amount from the present owner-Respondent No.2.
