ORDER Mishra, J. -- 1. These appeals have been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation and for saddling the liability on the• insurer. They are aggrieved by an award dated 12.7.2000, passed by the IV Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Morena, in Claim Case Nos. 78/99 and 79/99. 2. Briefly stated, facts are that on 17.6.1993 when Shri Tejsingh was going from Joura to Morena on his motorcycle (CIR 2140), which was dashed by bus (MP07/9750) driven by Shri Ramsingh, owned by Shri Shivkumar and insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. , 3. Report of the accident was lodged. Case was registered against the driver at Crime No. 122/93. Shri Tejsingh succumbed to the injuries. His age was 23 years. He was an agriculturist and contractor. It was claimed that he was earning a sum of Rs.1,800/- per month. Widow and sister of the deceased were dependent upon him. Compensation of Rs.43,20,000/ was claimed. 4. The owner of the bus, in the written statement, contended that the deceased himself drove the motorcycle in rash and negligent manner. The owner and the insurer of motorcycle were also the necessary party. As the vehicle was insured, liability is that of the insurer. 5. The insurer, the National Insurance Co. Ltd., filed a written statement contending that the deceased himself was negligent. The vehicle was not insured. A cheque was given by Shri Vasudeo Prasad Sharma to Shri Sudhir Kumar Dubey, Development Officer, Datia Branch, on 3.8.1992 containing the premium of Rs.12,020/- Cover note No. 72541 was issued. However, as the cheque was not honoured by the Bank, intimation was sent by registered post on 24.8.1992 to Shri Shivkumar Sharma regarding dishonour of the cheque and cancellation of the cover note and the policy. Once the cancellation was intimated, there was no liability on the part of the insurer. Accident had taken place subsequent to cancellation of the policy, as such responsibility vis-a-vis is that of the third party. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal has held that the accident was the outcome of rash and negligent driving of Shri Ramsingh, the driver of the bus. Owing to the injuries sustained in the accident, Shri Tejsingh died. He was not negligent. The vehicle was not insured as on the date of the accident, as such the insurer has been exonerated from making the payment of compensation. Owing to the injuries sustained in the accident, Shri Tejsingh died. He was not negligent. The vehicle was not insured as on the date of the accident, as such the insurer has been exonerated from making the payment of compensation. Compensation of Rs.1,68,000/- has been awarded along with interest @ 12 per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 7. In MA No. 696/2000, same vehicle was involved in the accident. The date of accident is different. Accident took place on 4.1.1993 when Raghupati, who was the cleaner in the bus, went on the roof of the bus to unload the luggage, all of a sudden, bus was started by the driver Lokendra. Raghupati fell down, sustained injuries and died on the spot. Report of the accident was lodged. Age of Raghupati was 20 years. It was claimed that he was earning a sum of Rs.1,800/- per month. Widow, minor son and mother of the deceased were dependent upon him. Compensation of Rs.17,38,000/- was claimed. 8. The driver and owner, in their written statement, contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver. False case was registered by the police as against the driver. Vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd., as such liability, if any, was that of the insurer. 9. Insurer has taken the plea that it was not liable as the cheque which was given was dishonoured. Intimation of cancellation of cover note was issued. 10. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, these appeals have been preferred for enhancement of compensation and for saddling the liability on the insurer. 11. The cross-objection has also been preferred by the owner. There was delay in filing the cross-objection. However, filing of the cross-objection is superfluous as the claimants have taken the ground agitated in the cross-objection in the appeals itself. 12. Shri Vijay Suderam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants, has submitted that in M.A. No. 597/2000, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded inadequate compensation. Insurer ought to have been saddled with the liability to make the payment of compensation to third party. Intimation of cancellation was not served. Hence, the liability of the insurer subsists with respect to the third party to make the payment of compensation. Liability of the respondents be held to be joint and several to make the payment of compensation. Insurer ought to have been saddled with the liability to make the payment of compensation to third party. Intimation of cancellation was not served. Hence, the liability of the insurer subsists with respect to the third party to make the payment of compensation. Liability of the respondents be held to be joint and several to make the payment of compensation. He has further submitted that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.42,000/- per annum is the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal, dependency was worked out at Rs.24,000/- per annum. Rs. 12,000/- has been further deducted which was not proper, appropriate multiplier at the age of 23 years, the age of the deceased was 17, whereas multiplier of 13 was applied, as such inadequate compensation has been awarded. He has prayed for enhancement of compensation. 13. Shri Vijay Sunderam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants has further submitted that in MA No. 696/2000, earning of the deceased was Rs.1,800/- per month. Income has been wrongly assessed at Rs.1,200/- per month. Multiplier of 13 has been applied at the age of 20 years, which is not proper. Thus, the compensation be suitably enhanced. 14. Shri R.P. Gupta with Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the owner, have submitted that the vehicle was insured. Intimation of cancellation was not served at any point of time, as such in the absence of intimation being given of cancellation of policy and cancellation of cover note/policy and dishonour of the cheque, the insured was deprived of depositing the amount. Thus, there was no effective cancellation vis-a-vis liability of the insurer to third party. Intimation was also not given to the registering authority as contemplated under section 147(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Intimation was given to the registering authority, Datia, whereas the intimation was required to be given to Registering Authority, Gwalior. 15. Shri B.N. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer in both the appeals, has supported the award. He has submitted that the cancellation was made, registered notice was sent on the correct address given by the owner. Owner had taken the plea that the amount was deposited in cash which plea has not been found to be proved by the learned Claims Tribunal. He has submitted that the cancellation was made, registered notice was sent on the correct address given by the owner. Owner had taken the plea that the amount was deposited in cash which plea has not been found to be proved by the learned Claims Tribunal. Cheque which was given by Shri Vasudeo on behalf of the insured was dishonoured and intimation of the same was given to the insured, i.e., the owner. He has deliberately not accepted the notice and got endorsement made of the postman that it was an incomplete address. On efforts being made, whereabouts could not be found. Thus, the endorsement makes it clear that it was a case of an evidence of service of notice. Thus, it should be taken that cancellation was to the knowledge of the owner. Hence, learned Claims Tribunal is right in concluding that the insurer is not liable to make payment of compensation as policy stood cancelled before the date of accident in both the cases. 16. First we come to the question of quantum of compensation: In M.A. No. 697/2000 : Shri Tejsingh has died. He owned agriculture land in area more than 5 hectares and was also contractor. Finding has been given that his income was Rs.42,000/- per annum from both the sources. As the income from agriculture remains Rs.12,000/-, that amount was further reduced and after making deduction towards self expenditure, it appears that the deceased was having half share in the aforesaid agriculture land. As the deceased was having half share in the agriculture land, it would be proper to assess his income at Rs.30,000/- per annum from both the sources, 1/3rd deduction has to be made towards self expenditure of the deceased which amount he would have spent on himself had he been alive. Thus, loss of annual dependency comes to Rs.20,000/-. The age of the deceased was 23 years, multiplier of 13 has been applied, whereas multiplier of 17 is applicable as widow is one of the claimants, we apply the multiplier of 17. Thus, the compensation on account of loss of dependency comes to Rs.20,000 x 17 = Rs.3,40,000/-. In addition, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.2,000/- on account of funeral expenses, Rs.2,500/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for loss expectancy of life. A further sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded to the widow on account of loss of consortium. Thus, the compensation on account of loss of dependency comes to Rs.20,000 x 17 = Rs.3,40,000/-. In addition, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.2,000/- on account of funeral expenses, Rs.2,500/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for loss expectancy of life. A further sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded to the widow on account of loss of consortium. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs.3,40,000 + Rs.2,000 + Rs.2,500 + Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000 = Rs.3,54,500/ - (Three lacs fifty four thousand five hundred only). The compensation enhanced by us to carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. Coming to M.A. No. 696/2000 : The deceased Raghupati was a cleaner on the bus. Smt. Kamladevi (CW 1) has stated that the deceased used to receive Rs.1,500/- per month by way of salary and Rs.10/- per day allowance. The assessment of the income made by the learned Claims Tribunal at Rs.1,200/- per month is on lower side. It would be proper to assess the income of the deceased at Rs.1,800/- per month inclusive of allowance. Making 1/3rd deduction which amount deceased would have spent on himself had he been alive, loss of monthly dependency comes to Rs.1,200/- annual Rs.14,400/-, multiplier at the age of 20 years which is applicable is 16, whereas multiplier of 13 has been applied which is on lower side; we apply the multiplier of 16 as widow, child and mother of the deceased are the claimants. Thus, the compensation on account of loss of dependency comes to Rs.14,400 x 16 = Rs.2,30,400/-. In addition, the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.2,000/- on account of funeral expenses, Rs.2,500/- for loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- for loss of expectancy of life. A further sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded to the widow on account of loss of consortium. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs.2,30,400 + Rs.2,000 + Rs.2,500 + Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000 = Rs.2,44,500/- (Two lacs forty four thousand five hundred only). The compensation enhanced by us to carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 17. Coming to question of liability of the insurer in both the appeals. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs.2,30,400 + Rs.2,000 + Rs.2,500 + Rs.5,000 + Rs.5,000 = Rs.2,44,500/- (Two lacs forty four thousand five hundred only). The compensation enhanced by us to carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 17. Coming to question of liability of the insurer in both the appeals. Though the case was set up by the insured that the amount was paid in cash to the insurer, thereafter the cover note was issued and in the cover note it was not mentioned that the payment was made by cheque which is usual where the payment is made by cheque. We find that case set up of payment by cash is rightly rejected. Cover note was issued on 3.8.1992 and it appears that the cheque given by Shri Vasudeo Prasad Sharma was dishonoured, after receipt of the intimation of dishonour of the cheque, cover note was cancelled on 24.8.1992 by the insurer and intimation was sent to the insured Shri Shivkumar Sharma by registered post. However, the said notice was not served on Shri Shivkumar Sharma as on the registered envelope or notice (Ex.D8) it was mentioned by the postman that incomplete address was given as Shri Shivkumar Sharma, Amkho, Gwalior. It was not mentioned by the postman that the intimation was given to the insured to collect it from the post office or there was refusal to accept the notice. It was necessary to inform the dishonour of the cheque to the insured so that insured was able to take steps to deposit the amount with the insurer to cover the liability in case of dishonour of the cheque. I cannot be said to be a service of notice intimating the cancellation of the cover note. Though cancellation was made but it was not communicated. In the similar circumstances in M. Nageswara Rao v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others [ 2004 ACJ 1554 ], Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court had held that it was necessary to prove that the notices were served on the insured so as to give him an opportunity to remit the premium amount for cheque that is dishonoured. The question has been considered thus : "20. Ltd. and others [ 2004 ACJ 1554 ], Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court had held that it was necessary to prove that the notices were served on the insured so as to give him an opportunity to remit the premium amount for cheque that is dishonoured. The question has been considered thus : "20. We are also of the firm view that even for an administrative action by a Public Sector Undertaking the principle audi alteram partem has to be applied. In this case, though the insurance company produced Exh.B3 and EX.B4 said to have been issued by them, it failed to prove that they served these notices on the insured. Hence, we express our inability to follow the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Seema Malhotra [2001 ACJ 638 (SC)], for the reasons given supra. We arc inclined to follow the other two judgments, namely, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur [1998 ACJ 123 (SC)] and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rula [2000 ACJ 630 (SC)], wherein their Lordships specifically dealt with the provisions of Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act dealing with the insurance policies of the vehicles to be put to use in public places and the consequences that will emanate from such a policy. Even assuming for a moment that the principle laid down in Seema Malhotra's case (supra), is to be accepted in the light of the observations are squarely applicable to the facts of the case as the insured was not given opportunity to remit the premium amount for cheque that is dishonoured." 18. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur [1998(1) MPWN 164= 1998 ACJ 123 (SC)], the apex Court has laid down that once cover note/policy is issued, the insurer became liable to indemnify the third party liability. In the instant case, as cancellation was not informed to the insured, in our opinion vis-a-vis to third party insurer continues to be liable. 19. In New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Rula and others [2000(2) Vidhi Bhaswar=2000 ACJ 630], the apex Court has relied upon Indrajit Kaur's case (supra) and held that if on the date of accident there was a policy, cancellation subsequently due to dishonour of the cheque would not come to rescue of the insurer, it continues to be liable to make the payment to third party. In the instance case, as there was no effective communication of cancellation of policy, which was necessary, we find that it is open to the third party to recover the compensation even from the insurer, apart from driver and owner of the vehicle. 20. Resultantly the appeals arc partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. In MA No. 697/2000, compensation of Rs.3,54,500/- along with interest on enhanced amount at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization and MA No. 696/2000 compensation of R.s.2,54,500/- along with interest on the enhanced amount @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, is awarded. Liability of the respondents is held to be joint and several to make the payment of compensation. No costs. Appeals partly allowed.