JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—This is an appeal arising out of judgment and order passed by the District Judge, Mathura on 16th April, 2008. 2. The contention of the insurance company is that the insurance policy is made for the period between 28th June, 2006 and 27th June, 2007. First accident took place on 7th February, 2007 when the claim amount was settled on 21st May, 2007 in respect of damage of the vehicle for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It appears from the facts and circumstances of this case that the second accident caused on 18th May, 2007 whereunder the deceased died being third party to such vehicle. 3. The insurance company has contended before us that when the claim was settled on 21st May, 2007 on account of the accident caused by the vehicle on 7th February, 2007, the insurance coverage was extinguished with such retrospective date. The insurance coverage would not have been treated to there on the date of the second accident i.e. 18th May, 2007. 4. We are of the view that the argument, as made by the learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company, made a complex situation without backed by law. According to us, there is no law available that if the insurance coverage is made and claim with regard to damage of the vehicle is given to the owner within the coverage period, payment of compensation to a third party will not be given. In other words, coverage of insurance will be automatically extinguished. A tactical point has been taken that if the accident was caused on 7th February, 2007 how such vehicle can meet with the second accident on 18th May, 2007, is a matter between the owner and the insurance company for which the claimant should not be made to suffer. 5. So far as the quantum is concerned, it has been fixed by the tribunal on the basis of income of Rs. 110/- per day as per oral evidence since the person concerned was doing job of “Lohar” i.e. a specialised job. The amount of compensation was awarded after giving deduction of 1/3, which, according to us, cannot be said to be faulty. 6. Therefore, in totality no order can be passed in favour of the appellant to admit the appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed without imposing any cost. 7. The amount of compensation was awarded after giving deduction of 1/3, which, according to us, cannot be said to be faulty. 6. Therefore, in totality no order can be passed in favour of the appellant to admit the appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed without imposing any cost. 7. So far as recovery is concerned, it is open to the insurance company to make appropriate application before the tribunal concerned wherein upon giving notice and opportunity of hearing the same will be decided in the self same proceeding but without stalling any payment to be made to the claimants. 8. Incidentally, the appellant-insurance company prayed that the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- made before this Court for preferring this appeal be remitted back to the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as expeditiously as possible in order to adjust the same with the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants, however, such prayer is allowed. ————