Judgment : S. TAMILVANAN, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 26.7.1995 made in O.S. No. 128 of 1992 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengaipattu. 2. The appellant herein was the third defendant in the suit before the Trial Court. The suit was filed by the first respondent herein against the defendants therein. It is not in dispute that the second respondent herein/first defendant is the owner of the Tractor-Trailor bearing Registration Nos. TDH 1741 and TDH 1742 respectively, which met with an accident on 3.3.1992. The third respondent is the Insurance Company under whom the said Tractor- Trailor had been insured for the period prior to the accident. The appellant Bank herein had sanctioned loan to the second respondent for purchasing the said Tractor-Trailor. The above said vehicle got capsized in the accident, due to which, one Krishnamoorthi, who was the son of the first respondent died on the spot. 3. According to the first respondent, it was the usual practice of the appellant to renew the policy with the third respondent and the appellant used to debit the insurance amount in the account of the second respondent. According to the first respondent, though the appellant had received the renewal notice from the third respondent, the Bank had not renewed the same, but allowed the policy to expire on 16.12.1991 itself. According to the first respondent, it is only due to the carelessness and the negligence on the part of the appellant herein, the third party insurance was not renewed subsequently, with the third respondent, based on which, the suit was filed seeking for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the aforesaid Krishnamoorthi, son of the first respondent. 4. Considering the oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced by both sides, the Trial Court decreed the suit directing the appellant to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the first respondent with interest at 6% per annum with proportionate cost. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant/third defendant. 5. V. Bhiman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the suit had been filed without jurisdiction, since the claim is based on the motor accident, in view of Section 175of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as the Act). Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant/third defendant. 5. V. Bhiman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the suit had been filed without jurisdiction, since the claim is based on the motor accident, in view of Section 175of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as the Act). Section 175of the Act reads as follows: “ Section 175. Bar on jurisdiction of Civil Courts.- Where any claims Tribunal has been constituted for any area, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the claims Tribunal for that area, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by or before the Claims Tribunal in respect of the claim for compensation shall be granted by the Civil Court.” 6. The instant case had not been instituted by the first respondent claiming any relief under the Motor Vehicles Act, but seeking the relief against the appellant Bank, only as a common law remedy. As the suit has been filed by the first respondent herein seeking the relief of damages as common law remedy it is not hit by Section 175 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant further contended that as per Section 2 sub clause 30 of the Act, the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation in the absence of a valid third party insurance. According to him, since the appellant is neither the owner of the vehicle nor the insurance company, the appellant is not liable to pay any damages to the first respondent as held by the Court below. Section 2 sub clause 30 of the Act reads as follows: “‘Owner‘ means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement.” 8. As per the definition clause, the term owner has been defined with reference to a motor vehicle, which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation that the person in whose possession the vehicle stands as per agreement is construed as the owner of the vehicle. In the instant case, admittedly the vehicle was not purchased under hire-purchase agreement According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the second respondent herein, had obtained loan from the appellant-bank for the purpose of purchasing the Tractor-Trailor. He was permitted to pay the dues with interest, in instalments and the vehicle alone was hypothecated to the bank and therefore, the ownership remains with the second respondent and therefore, so far as the appellant Is concerned, there is no vicarious liability to pay the damages to the first respondent for the accident caused by the motor vehicle. According to him, there is no privity of contract, between the appellant and the second respondent herein, to pay any compensation to the third respondent in the absence of third party insurance. 9. It is not in dispute that the appellant had paid premium on behalf of the second respondent herein, to the third respondent, on his instructions till the year 1990. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, from the year 1991, there was no such instruction from the second respondent for payment of any amount towards the renewal of the third party insurance policy, relating to the vehicle purchased by the second respondent and that there was no notice either from the third respondent with regard to the same. As there was no third party insurance coverage on 16.12.1991, only the second respondent being the owner of the vehicle has to pay the damages to the dependents of the deceased and if the same was paid by the third respondent herein, ultimately the same could be recovered only from the second respondent and therefore, the appellant is no way liable to pay the damages as claimed by the first respondent/plaintiff. 10. V. Bhiman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant drew the attention of this Court further, on the evidence of P.W.2. 10. V. Bhiman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant drew the attention of this Court further, on the evidence of P.W.2. It is seen that the second respondent himself has deposed evidence as P.W.2 and admittedly the second respondent and the husband of the first respondent were close relatives, as cousins and that is the reason for ignoring the liability of the second respondent, the suit was filed seeking damages from the appellant herein. 11. According to T.V. Krishnamachari, leaned counsel appearing for the first respondent, there was negligence on the part of the appellant in not paying the amount for renewal of third party insurance. It is not in dispute that on 3.3.1992, the motor accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor-trailor, by the deceased Krishnamoorthi, son of the first respondent. Had there been any subsisting third party insurance coverage, the first respondent being the mother and dependent of the deceased Krishnamoorthi could have maintained her claim against the Insurance Company, third respondent herein. But in the instant case, admittedly on 3.3.1992, the date of accident, there was no third patty insurance coverage. Therefore, the insurance company need not pay any amount towards damages. However, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant, despite the failure of renewal of the policy, compensation could be claimed against the third respondent, as there was earlier policy coverage prior to the motor accident and after making the payment, the said Insurance Company can recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 12. 1n support of his contention, learned counsel for the first respondent relied on a decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur and Others Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur and Others Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur and Others AIR 1998 SC 588 : (1998) 1 SCC 371 : (1998) 1 MLJ 78 wherein, it has been held that under Sections 64-VB, 146,147 and 149, through payment of premium for policy of insurance by cheque, had bounced, the Insurance Company was held not absolved of its obligations to third parties merely because, it had not received the premium. In the instant case, the vehicle involved in the accident had insurance coverage with the third respondent till 1990, and subsequently, the same was not renewed. In the instant case, the vehicle involved in the accident had insurance coverage with the third respondent till 1990, and subsequently, the same was not renewed. Being the insurance company, in the light of the decision referred to above, the third respondent had to pay the damages as claimed by the first respondent and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 13. In the instant case, on the date of the accident, there was no third party insurance coverage with the third respondent since there was no renewal. It has been admitted that the second respondent was the owner of the Tractor-trailor, which met with the accident. Therefore, the second respondent in the absence of insurance coverage, being the owner of the vehicle, is vicariously liable to pay the damages to the first respondent. 14. As per the case of the first respondent, though the third respondent had given instructions to the appellant to renew the policy, it was not renewed by the appellant As per the evidence of D.W.1-Deputy Manager of the appellant, insurance premium was paid by the bank only on the instructions received from the second respondent During the year 1991, there was no such instruction from the second respondent to pay any amount towards the renewal of the policy. Further, being the owner or the vehicle, the second respondent had to pay the amount or instruct the Bank to pay the premium from his bank account towards the renewal. In the instant case, according to the appellant Bank, the second respondent had not given any instructions for renewal of the third party insurance for the relevant period. It is clear that in the absence of any evidence, the second respondent cannot make the bank responsible to pay damages to third parties. The Assistant of the United India Insurance Company, Chengalpattu has been examined as P.W.3 in the suit. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would contend that under the original of Exhibit A-4/Insurance Policy renewal, it was indicated about the renewal of third party insurance. 15. The appellant contended that he had paid the premium only on the instructions given by the second respondent for the earlier period and there was no such instruction subsequently for the relevant period. 15. The appellant contended that he had paid the premium only on the instructions given by the second respondent for the earlier period and there was no such instruction subsequently for the relevant period. V. Bhiman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that in the written statement itself, it has been clearly stated by the appellant that there was no instruction from the second respondent to pay the premium on behalf of the second respondent and even in the written statement filed by the third respondent, there is no averment for having sent any renewal notice to the appellant According to the learned counsel, Exhibit A-4 is not a genuine document, but only a self serving document created for the purpose of the case. The Court has to consider whether there was any negligence on the part of the appellant after having received any renewal notice sent by the third respondent herein. It is seen from the written statement of the third respondent that there is no whisper about Exhibit A-4 and that there is no evidence for service of such notice on the appellant. Further, the first respondent had no privity of contract with the appellant to seek the relief directly from the appellant. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would contend that though there was no whisper about Exhibit A-4 In the written statement filed by third respondent, the document should be legally presumed as a genuine document, since it is an official act, which has been regularly performed. In this context, it is necessary to refer Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (herein after called as the Evidence Act). As per Section 114 of the Evidence Act, the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks that the same, have likely to have happened in relation to the facts of the particular case, the Court may presume in such circumstances that the Judicial or official, act has been regularly performed. But as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant to construe an act had likely been performed during the course of an official business, at least Exhibit A-4 must have contained the letter number or perport number and the date of despatch, no such reference is available in Exhibit A-4. Further it is not a send for document received from the office of the third respondent. Further it is not a send for document received from the office of the third respondent. Assistant of the third respondent, who was examined as P.W.3 has deposed that the said exhibit viz., Exhibit A-4 was not issued by him. It is seen that Exhibit X-1, the alleged Insurance renewal copy, is only a carbon copy, which contains no reference number of the letter sent to the appellant herein and the Xerox copy of the same has been marked as Exhibit A-4. 17. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, this document is only a self serving document. Further, even in the written statement filed by the third respondent, there is no details available about the alleged notice sent to the appellant It is not in dispute that the first respondent is the wife of the second respondents cousin and as such they are close relatives. Further, though the second respondent was the first defendant before the trial Court, he has deposed his evidence only as P.W.2, in other words as a plaintiffs witness. According to the learned counsel for appellant, it is only a collusive suit filed by the first and second respondents herein and P.W.3 has also given evidence as plaintiffs witness, though he was only an employee in the United India Insurance Company Limited/second defendant in the suit. In this appeal, second respondent owner of the vehicle, remained absent. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, for seeking common law remedy, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is sufficient to hold that there was employer and employee relationship between P.W.2 and the deceased Krishnamoorthi. Therefore, the first respondent could have claimed damages against the second respondent, even under the Workmens Compensation Act. 18. So far as the third respondent is concerned, it has been clearly stated that there was no renewal of third party insurance policy on the date of the motor accident and therefore, as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the dependent of the deceased. Even if compensation is paid as per the Motor Vehicles Act, the amount could be recovered by the Insurance Company from the owner of the vehicle. Even if compensation is paid as per the Motor Vehicles Act, the amount could be recovered by the Insurance Company from the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the point for determination is whether the appellant or the second respondent owner of the vehicle is liable to pay damages to the first respondent/plaintiff. 19. In the decision in Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur and Others Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur and Others Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur and Others (supra), the Hon‘ble Apex Court has ruled that the Insurance is not absolved of its obligations to third parties under the policy, merely because it did not receive the premium. 20. In Pradeep Kumar Jain v. Citibank and another Pradeep Kumar Jain v. Citibank and another Pradeep Kumar Jain v. Citibank and another , 1999 AIR SCW 3067, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “ 5. Under Section 146 of the Act there is an obligation on the owner of a vehicle to take out an insurance policy as provided under Chapter XI of the Act If any vehicle is driven without obtaining such an insurance policy it is punishable under Section 196 of the Act The policy may be comprehensive or only covering third parties or liability may be limited. Thus when the obligation was upon the appellant to obtain such a policy, merely by passing of a cheque to be sent to the insurance company would not obviate his liability to obtain such policy. It is not clear on the record as to the nature of the policy that had been obtained by the appellant earlier when he purchased the vehicle and which was to be renewed from time to time. It is also not clear whether even in the case of renewal, a fresh application has to be made by the appellant or on the old policy itself an endorsement would have been made. In the absence of such material on record, and the nature of the insurance policy or any anxiety shown by the appellant in obtaining the policy as he could not ply such vehicle without such an insurance policy being obtained, he cannot claim that merely because he had passed on the cheques, the entire liability to pay all damages arising would be upon the first respondent” 21. In Ramalingam v. Parvathi , (2002) 3 MLJ 415 , the Division Bench of this Court has held that in case of failure on the part of the bank to renew the policy, owner of the vehicle, customer of the bank, had given instructions to the bank to renew the policy of the vehicle is entitled to recover the award amount from the bank by way of damages. Therefore, it is clear that if the policy was not renewed due to the negligence of the bank, which had agreed to renew the policy, the owner of the vehicle, being a customer of the bank is entitled to claim damages from the bank for the negligence as tortorious liability. 22. It is seen from the aforesaid decisions that in the absence of the third party insurance coverage, only the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay damages to the victim or the dependents of the victim in case of a fatal accident. Admittedly, there was no contractual obligations on the part of the appellant-Bank and the first respondent. Only in case of negligence as Banker and customer, the liability can be fixed on the appellant by the customer, for which, the burden is heavily upon the second respondent, being the owner of the vehicle and customer of the appellant. In the instant case, there is no admissible evidence to show that there was any instruction given by him, to the appellant-bank by the second appellant and to show that he had sufficient money available with the bank in his account, so as to pay the premium and fix the negligence on the part of the appellant. It has been admitted in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that only the second respondent was conducting the case against the first respondent and further, the second respondent had deposed his evidence only as P.W.2, and in this appeal, there is no representation for the second respondent owner of the vehicle. As contended by learned counsel for the appellant there is no privity of contract between the first respondent and the appellant to seek the relief of compensation directly from the appellant-Bank. 23. 1n the above said circumstances, it is clear that the first appellant has not established her claim against the appellant. As contended by learned counsel for the appellant there is no privity of contract between the first respondent and the appellant to seek the relief of compensation directly from the appellant-Bank. 23. 1n the above said circumstances, it is clear that the first appellant has not established her claim against the appellant. However, the second respondent being the owner of the vehicle, on the date of the motor accident and also the employer of the deceased, is liable to pay compensation as there is no evidence to fix the negligence on the part of the appellant to pay damages to the first respondent, on behalf of the second respondent. However, pursuant to the judgment and decree of the trial Court, it is seen that the appellant had already deposited the amount before the Trial Court, without prejudice to the claim of the appellant and the first respondent/plaintiff was also permitted to withdraw the amount. 24. Since, the appellant had already deposited the amount as ordered by the trial Court and withdrawn by the first respondent to meet the ends of justice, this Court declares that the appellant first defendant is entitled to recover the amount paid as damages to the first respondent from the second respondent herein. 25. With the above modification, this appeal Is disposed of. However, there is no order as to costs.