K. SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE deceased in m. V. C. No. 1 of 1995 is one Rachappa puttappa Chakrasali died in a motor vehicle accident. The deceased is said to be a coolie working in a rice mill. His income is stated to be assessed at Rs. 450 per month, as per petition averments wife and children are the petitioners. Besides, the mother is impleaded as pro forma respondent No. 1 in the appeal. ( 2 ) AS per unit system, Rs. 90 has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Thus the total loss of dependency would be rs. 64,800 (Rs. 360 x 12 x 15 multiplier ). The wife is entitled to Rs. 10,000 for loss of consortium. The petitioners-appellants together entitled to Rs. 10,000 for loss of expectancy and Rs. 3,000 for funeral expenses. In all, petitioners-appellants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 87,800 payable with interest at 6 per cent from the date of petition till payment. ( 3 ) THE Claims Tribunal has dismissed the petition on the ground that petitioners-appellants have failed to prove the negligence. The view taken by the Tribunal is palpably false. The documents produced show that driver of the offending vehicle is prosecuted in the criminal case. There is no denial of the occurrence of the accident. There is no contra evidence to disbelieve the oral evidence. In that view, the petitioners-appellants have successfully proved the negligence. The contra finding of the Tribunal in that belief is liable to be set aside. ( 4 ) THE insurer, respondent No. 4, in the additional written statement has admitted the insurance of vehicle, w. e. f. 3. 8. 1983 to 2. 8. 1984. Accident occurred on 9. 5. 1984. It is said that the policy is cancelled w. e. f. 9. 2. 1983 and the premium amount paid by respondent No. 2 has been refunded to him on the ground that he was not the owner of the vehicle. The respondent No. 2 was in possession of the vehicle and was also operating the vehicle. In law, the person in possession and operating the vehicle has also an insurable interest. It is not necessary that RC holder alone can take policy of insurance. The respondent No. 2 was in possession of the vehicle and was also operating the vehicle. In law, the person in possession and operating the vehicle has also an insurable interest. It is not necessary that RC holder alone can take policy of insurance. In that view, the cancellation effected by the respondent No. 4 on the ground that the respondent No. 2 is not the owner, is not a valid reason for cancellation. Accordingly, the cancellation cannot affect the right of the third party. The insurer, respondent No. 4, is directed to pay the compensation. Appeal allowed.