JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is arising out of the order dated 4.12.1993 of Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sikar, whereby he has awarded Rs. 1,93,000 plus interest to claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 5. The claimant-respondents had filed a claim petition under the provisions of Section 110-A read with Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles'Act, 1939, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,05,000 on the death of Sita Ram in an accident on 5.4.1987. 2. Jonga jeep No. RJP 3574 was hired by the deceased along with other passengers. On that day while the jeep was going from the village of the deceased towards Salasar, that jeep was overturned near village Bhuma. The owner of the jeep is respondent No. 7 Ramavtar, s/o Ram Prasad. The jeep was insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. In claim petition, the age of the deceased has been shown as 28 years. That has also been estimated by the doctor at the time of post-mortem. The doctor has also opined that the cause of death of Sita Ram is due to accident. The deceased left behind him his wife Shanti, aged 24 years, Mamta and Pinki, 5 years and 3 years of age, daughters of deceased, Hardeva Ram, aged 70 years, father of the deceased and Nanudi, aged 60 years, mother of the deceased. 3. In the petition it is claimed that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,500 per month. Considering the evidence on record, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was of the view that the deceased was earning minimum Rs. 600 per month. Taking that amount as a base and the age of deceased at the time of accident, Rs. 1,68,000 was awarded as compensation on the death of deceased Sita Ram and further Rs. 25,000 was allowed on account of loss of consortium and loss of love and affection to the members of his family, Rs. 15,000 was already paid as interim relief to the claimants. After its adjustment, the net balance payable comes to Rs. 1,78,000 and that has been allowed as per concluding para of the order to the claimants.Being aggrieved by the order of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the National Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant company submits that in the jeep, there were more than 12 passengers while it overturned and the cover note is antedated. Ltd. has preferred this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant company submits that in the jeep, there were more than 12 passengers while it overturned and the cover note is antedated. There is nothing brought on record by the appellant that more than 12 persons were travelling at the time of accident. On the contrary, one of the passengers PW 3 Prabhat has deposed in the court that at the time of accident, he was travelling along with deceased Sita Ram, Sita Ram's wife, Sita Ram's younger brother's wife, his elder brother's wife and mother of Sita Ram, in all 8-10 persons were in the jeep. He is an independent witness, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW 3 Prabhat. 5. Mr. Tyagi, counsel for the appellant, has also argued that the cover note is antedated. The accident took place on 5.4.87. The risk of accident of Jonga jeep No. RJP 3574 was not covered on the date of accident. The cover note Exh. P-1 is antedated. I do not find any substance in the second submission of Mr. Tyagi that the cover note was antedated. The cover note has been issued by a permanent Development Officer of the company, N.S. Shekhawat. As per record, the cover note was issued on 4.4.87 and on the same day, the premium of Rs. 180 was paid by the owner of the jeep. Mr. Tyagi submits that the amount has not been deposited in the company by Shekhawat before the date of accident. Whether Shekhawat, Development Officer of the company deposits that amount after the accident or after a year from the date of payment by the jeep owner, is not the responsibility of the jeep owner. After payment of premium by the jeep owner Ramavtar, the risk is covered and if Shekhawat has not deposited that money in the company, appropriate action can be taken against him, but how the benefit of risk covered can be denied to Ramavtar who paid the premium on 4.4.87 and cover note has been issued by the Development Officer of the company in this regard. Even there is no material on record that any action or punishment has been given to Shekhawat for not depositing the premium money in the company in time. In view of these undisputed facts, I do not find any substance in this appeal. Even there is no material on record that any action or punishment has been given to Shekhawat for not depositing the premium money in the company in time. In view of these undisputed facts, I do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limine.Appeal dismissed. *******