K. SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE deceased in m. V. C. No. 402 of 1993 is one Palangappa. The mother and sisters are petitioners. The Tribunal awarded compensation of rs. 1,81,200 with interest at 6 per cent from the date of petition till payment. The tribunal directed the owner and the insurer to pay the compensation. The insurer is in appeal seeking avoidance of liability on the ground that the policy of insurance issued has been validly cancelled and that there was no policy as on the date of the accident to fasten liability on the insurer. This court in M. F. A. No. 5071 of 1999 set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law. ( 2 ) THE insurer has let in evidence before the Tribunal after the order of the remand. Petitioner has produced copy of the policy at Exh. R3. The cover note is marked at exh. R1. It is contended that the policy is cancelled, but the insurer has not led any evidence to prove the fact of cancellation. Rule 10 of the Third Party Insurance Rules, 1946, mandates that the insurer has to issue a registered notice to the insured informing the cancellation and the reason for cancellation. In the instant case, the insurer has not issued required notice to insured and has not adduced any evidence to show the mandatory compliance. In that view, the insurer cannot avoid liability. The insurer is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. The insurer is, however, entitled to proceed against the insured in accordance with law for reimbursement, if the plea of insurer is true and correct. The amount in deposit be transmitted to the claims Tribunal for payment. The rest of the award is confirmed. ( 3 ) MR. R. K. Hatti, H. C. G. P. is permitted to file his memo of appearance for the respondent No. 6 within one month. Appeal dismissed.