JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against the award of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pali dated 6-8-1982 whereby the claim of the claimants has been accepted and a sum of Rs. 24,00/- have been awarded in favour of the claimant No. 2, and a sum of Rs. 7,200/- in favour of claimant No. 3. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this claim petition are that on 7-6-1978 Kailash (deceased) was driving his motorcycle No. RJE 1751 and was coming from Shivganj to Pali. On the back seat of the motor cycle his friend Jayanti Lal (P.W. 3) and Bharat Kumar (P.W. 6) were sitting. When he reached near Sanderao, he collided against a car No. MHI 3886 which was coming from opposite side in rash and negligent manner, as a result of this deceased Kailash died and Jayanti Lal (P.W. 3) and Bharat Kumar (P.W. 6) were injured. The claim petition was filed by the dependents of Kailash (deceased) mother and widow. The present claim petition was filed against the owner of the car Om Prakash who was driving. The claim was also filed against one C.D. Talreja who was the previous owner of this vehicle. The present vehicle was insured with M/s Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company. Therefore, Insurance Company was also impleded as party respondent. The Tribunal decreed the claim of the claimant against non claimant No. 1 owner of the vehicle as it was found that vehicle was purchased by Om Prakash from owner Shri C D. Talreja. The Tribunal obsolved Shri C.D. Talreja from any liability and like-wise the Insurance Company. The owner Om Prakash appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. Mr. Maheshwari learned counsel for the appellant has seriously contested that since , the vehicle was insured with M/s Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company should be made liable. In this connection, Mr. Maheshwari has invited my attention to section 103-A of Motor Vehicle Act and the statement of C.D. Talraja (O P.W. 6) and Mr. Mardio (O.P.W. 1) officers of the Insurance Company. He has also invited my attention to documents C-23/3 a intimation sent by the previous owner Shri C.D. Talerja (OPW-2) for the transfer of the vehicle. Mr. Maheshwari has invited my attention to section 103-A of Motor Vehicle Act and the statement of C.D. Talraja (O P.W. 6) and Mr. Mardio (O.P.W. 1) officers of the Insurance Company. He has also invited my attention to documents C-23/3 a intimation sent by the previous owner Shri C.D. Talerja (OPW-2) for the transfer of the vehicle. Mr. Maheshwari learned counsel submitted that since C.D. Talreja (CPW-2) the previous owner of this vehicle, sent the intimation to the insurance company of the transfer of this vehicle vide documents C-23/- the company has not denied transfer therefore, it should be presumed that company accepted the transfer and the company should be made responsible to indemnify the claimant. He has also invited my attention to the statement of Mr. Mardis (OPW- whom this document was put and he expressed his ignorance about such intimation. 4. I have given my careful consideration to contention raised by Mr. Mahashwari but am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel Section 103-A of Motor Vehicles Act reads as under : "103-A Transfer of certificate of insurance (i) where a person in whose favour the certificate of insurance has been issued in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter proposes to transfer to another person the ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which such insurance was taken together with the policy of insurance relating thereto, he may apply in the prescribed form to the insurer for the transfer of the certificate of insurance a id the policy described in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is proposed to be transferred, and if within fifteen days of the receipt of such application by the insurer, the insurer has not intimated the insured and such other person his refusal to transfer the certificate and the policy to the other person, the certificate of insurance and the policy described In the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the Motor Vehicle is transferred with effect from the date of its transfer." 5. A perusal of section 103 A clearly shows that the owner of the vehicle is liable to inform the company about so called transfer. A form to that effect has also been prescribed under the rule known as Motor Vehicle Rules. A perusal of section 103 A clearly shows that the owner of the vehicle is liable to inform the company about so called transfer. A form to that effect has also been prescribed under the rule known as Motor Vehicle Rules. The form reads as under : I/we propose to transfer the motor vehicles registered No...............in the name of Shri (Address) and l/we hereby apply in terms of Section 103 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for the transfer of the certificate of insurance No and the policy raiding thereto bearing No ................ Issued by you in respect of the said motor vehicle in favour of the said Shri............with effect from......... 6. Now in order to get the benefit of section 103-A of the Motor Vehicles Act it is incumbent on the part of the claimant to satisfactorily establish that the intimation has been sent to the company and company has not replied that intimation before expiry of 15 days. The intimation is required to be sent in the prescribed form as indicated above. But in the present case it is not possible to saddle the company with any liability because the non claimant has failed to prove by any cogent evidence that the v intimation was sent to the company. First of all, reply which has been filed by Mr. Malreja to the claim petition, he has not said a word whether the so called intimation was sent to the company or not. It is for the first time when he was examined in the witness box he came up with the case that he has sent the intimation to the insurance company as well as to the Registering Authorities. A letter Ex. C.23/3 has been placed on the record. But it has not been pointed out that whether it has received by the company or not. Secondly, it is also not satisfactorily established that whether this communication was sent by registered post. Nor it has been pointed out that whether any receipt is available with Taleraja (OPW-2) showing the receipt of so-called intimation. It is time that he has sent one intimation to the regional transport authority under certificate of postage, which is on record as Ex. C-23/4. But document Ex. Nor it has been pointed out that whether any receipt is available with Taleraja (OPW-2) showing the receipt of so-called intimation. It is time that he has sent one intimation to the regional transport authority under certificate of postage, which is on record as Ex. C-23/4. But document Ex. C-23/3 has not been shown to have been sent by registered post or through registered A.D., if the intimations had be sent to the insurance company and a receipt and filed, then of course burden will shift on the insurance company that whether they received any intimation or not. Unless definite evidence is produced showing that the communication was sent to company no presumption in favour of claimant can be accepted. Specially when no plea was taken by the non claimant in their reply to claim petition. More so when Mr. Mardia (OPW-1) was confronted with the communication C-23/3 he pleaded complete ignorance about it. Thus, in these circumstances it is not possible to accept contention of Mr. Maheshwari that the Insurance Company should indemnify claim as they have failed to discharge their duty by sending reply whether to accept the transfer of the policy under section 103-A or not. 7. Mr. Maheshwari has next contented there appears to be a bonafide error of calculation in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that Tribunal has awarded Rs. 24,000/- to the mother and Rs. 7,2000/- to the deceased wife for a period of three years because thereafter she got married. But for calculation of the amount of compensation the Tribunal has taken Rs. 2,00/- per month dependency of the family on the deceased. The amount of Rs. 2,00/- cannot be twice calculated i.e 2.00/- rupees per month for mother and Rs. 2,00/- per month for wife. This appears to be bonafied error of calculation. In fact Rs. 2,00/- dependency has to be for both mother as well as wife as the total income of deceased was Rs. 3,00/- . Thus, the deceased wife is entitled to Rs. 3,600/- at the rate -of Rs. 1,00/- per month till she remarried, and that amount has to be paid out of total of Rs. 24,000/- Thus, the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that claimant No. 2 mother will be entitled to sum of Rs. 20,400/- and non claimant No. 3 wife of the deceased will be entitled to Rs. 1,00/- per month till she remarried, and that amount has to be paid out of total of Rs. 24,000/- Thus, the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that claimant No. 2 mother will be entitled to sum of Rs. 20,400/- and non claimant No. 3 wife of the deceased will be entitled to Rs. 3,600/- claimants are entitled also to interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the claim petition. 8. The appeal is allowed in apart as indicated above. 9. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Appeal allowed *******