ABHAY GOHIL, J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment shall govern the disposal of both the appeals; misc. Appeal No. 599 of 2003 and Misc. Appeal No. 609 of 2003. Claimants have filed Misc. Appeal No. 599 of 2003 for enhancement of compensation under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Insurance company has also filed Misc. Appeal No. 609 of 2003 disputing its liability and the legal representatives of the owner of respondent Varun Ground Water development Corporation and the driver have also filed cross-objections disputing their liability. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that the deceased Bharat Bhushan Kaushik was an advocate practising at Gwalior. The claimants of Misc. Appeal No. 599 of 2003 are the widow, daughters and son of deceased bharat Bhushan Kaushik. On 7. 12. 1998 in the night at about 9 o'clock deceased was going towards Morena from Gwalior in his maruti van bearing No. MP 07-437 near jaderua village, which is 8 km. away from noorabad; one tanker No. MKH 9255 was parked in the mid of the road. The owner of the tanker was changing the tyre but no red signal was there indicating about the parking of the vehicle. The other vehicles were also passing from the road with halogen lights on. As a result of the halogen lights of other vehicles Maruti van dashed with the tanker from behind. Maruti van was damaged. Dinesh Sharma, who was travelling in the van died on spot. Yogendra Singh and Raj Kumar, who were also travelling in the van, received grievous injuries. Bharat Bhushan Kaushik was referred to J. A. Group of Hospitals, Gwalior, thereafter he was shifted to Garg Nursing home and as a consequence of the injuries in the intervening night of 7/8. 12. 1998 he died. Crime was registered at Police Station, Noorabad and claimants have filed their claim petition. Tribunal found that it was a case of contributory negligence. Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000 per month and after deduction. of 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, determined the dependency of Rs. 4,000 per month and after applying the multiplier of 15 assessed the total compensation of rs. 7,20,000 and deducted 50 per cent of the aforesaid amount towards contributory negligence. Thus, the Tribunal awarded rs. 3,60,000 plus Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium. 6,000 per month and after deduction. of 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, determined the dependency of Rs. 4,000 per month and after applying the multiplier of 15 assessed the total compensation of rs. 7,20,000 and deducted 50 per cent of the aforesaid amount towards contributory negligence. Thus, the Tribunal awarded rs. 3,60,000 plus Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium. Against which the claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. ( 3 ) IN M. A. No. 609 of 2003 it was the contention of the insurance company that the cheque issued towards the payment of premium was dishonoured, therefore, the insurance company is not liable. Considering the decisions of the Supreme Court the Tribunal directed that the insurance company may pay the amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle; against which the owner of the vehicle has also filed cross-objection. The driver of the vehicle has also filed cross-objections about his liability. ( 4 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence and finding recorded by the Tribunal, ( 5 ) FIRST of all we have perused the cross-objection filed on behalf of the owner and driver of the vehicle. No statutory amount as required under section 173 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 has been deposited by the owner or driver of the vehicle for filing the cross-objection. Therefore, on the face of it, the cross-objection is dismissed. ( 6 ) SO far as Misc. Appeal No. 609 of 2003 filed by the insurance company is concerned, Tribunal has already granted right of recovery to the insurance company. Since it is a case of third party accident, even in the case of cancellation of the policy on dishonour of cheque the insurance company is liable under statutory liability. The learned Tribunal has already placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur, 1998 ACJ 123 (SC) and new India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rula, 2000 ACJ 630 (SC), in which the Supreme court has held that once the cover note/ policy is issued, the insurance company becomes liable to indemnify the third party liability. Similar is the case in hand. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur, 1998 ACJ 123 (SC) and new India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rula, 2000 ACJ 630 (SC), in which the Supreme court has held that once the cover note/ policy is issued, the insurance company becomes liable to indemnify the third party liability. Similar is the case in hand. Therefore, when the right of recovery is given to the insurance company, in the light of the aforesaid decisions, we do not find that the Tribunal has committed any illegality and in the light of the aforesaid right we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the insurance company, as their rights are already protected. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed. ( 7 ) SO far as Misc. Appeal No. 599 of 2003 filed by the claimants is concerned, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Since the Tribunal has recorded a positive finding that the driver of the tanker was also liable for parking the vehicle in the mid-road and the driver of maruti van was also liable for driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, therefore, both are liable and their liability is contributory. In such type of accidents only one party cannot be held to be liable. Thus, we are also of the view that the Tribunal has recorded a positive finding and has rightly apportioned the liability between the parties as 50:50. Considering the aforesaid finding we do not find that any case is made out for reversal of the said finding. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the tribunal appears to be just and proper and no interference is called for. ( 8 ) SO far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 6,000 per month which is based on the evidence of claimants on record, which also appears to be just and proper. The Tribunal has applied proper multiplier of 15 looking to the age of the deceased, which was around 40-45 years. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation and we do not find any scope for enhancement looking to the age of the deceased. The Tribunal has applied proper multiplier of 15 looking to the age of the deceased, which was around 40-45 years. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation and we do not find any scope for enhancement looking to the age of the deceased. ( 9 ) IT was pointed out that the right of recovery had been given to the insurance company but it was directed that it will be limited to the extent of the share received in the property of the deceased Hitendra alias Jitendra Singh by the heirs. We consider it that this rider is not appropriate. Since owner of the vehicle is a company, therefore, the amount can be recovered either from the company or from directors of the company. With this modification, misc. Appeal No. 599 of 2003 is also dismissed. ( 10 ) CONSEQUENTLY, Misc. Appeal No. 599 of 2003 and Misc. Appeal No. 609 of 2003 and the cross-objection filed being devoid of any merit and substance are hereby dismissed. Appeals dismissed. .