JUDGMENT : P.K. Jaiswal, J. This order shall govern the aforesaid both the appeals, i.e. M.A. No.1871 of 2009 and M.A. No.2039 of 2009, as both are arising out of the same award and relating to the same accident M.A. No. 1871 of 2009 has been filed by the Insurance Company and M.A. No.2039 of 2009 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation. 2. The facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 7th August, 2006 at about 12.30 p.m., in the night was going from Kariya to Sailana in loading tempo bearing Engine No. R6-A-20340 and Cassis No. 005915, as per the instructions of the respondent No. 8 for carrying goods, the driver of the said loading tempo driving the said vehicle rashly and neglgiently turned the said tempo turtle and as a result, the Nanalal died. The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 had filed a claim petition u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the appellant and rest of the respondents before the 1st Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ratlam (M.P.) for compensation of Rs. 9,65,000 on the death of Nanalalji Bhill. 3. The owner and insurer of the vehicle contested the claim and have denied all the material allegations of the claim petition. The Tribunal after framing issues and after recording the evidence of the parties allowed the claim of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and have awarded Rs. 1,45,500/- in their favour, against the appellant and owner and driver of the vehicle. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the fact that at the time of accident offending Vikram loading tempo was not insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and has grossly erred in not considering the fact that the copy of the cover note No. GD 3137067 showing the vehicle to be insured from 14th July, 2006 to 13th July, 2007, is not valid as no premium was paid to the company on the said date and all the five original copies (Exts. D-1 to D-5) of the cover note are with the appellant company, which clearly proves that the cover note was prepared but not issued to the concerned person due to non-payment of the premium amount. D-1 to D-5) of the cover note are with the appellant company, which clearly proves that the cover note was prepared but not issued to the concerned person due to non-payment of the premium amount. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in believing the photo copy of the cover note No. GD3137067 filed by the claimants and in disbelieving the version of the appellant-Insurance Company. 4. It would contend that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in not disbelieving this fact that the said vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance Company from 30th August, 2006 to 29th August, 2007 vide Insurance Policy No. 3003/1092044/00/000, which is shown to have been prepared in lieu of cover note No. GD3246150. The aforesaid policy shows that since premium was not paid to the appellant-Insurance Company at the time of preparation of cover note No. GD3137067, hence, it was not issued to the concerned person and all the original copies of the cover Note No. GD3137067 remind with the company and it were not issued to any one. But, when the premium was paid later on, cover note No. GD3246150 has been issued to the concerned person insuring the vehicle from 30th August, 2006 to 29th August, 2007. Hence, the vehicle was not insured with the appellant-Insurance Company on the date of accident i.e. 7th August, 2006, so the appellant Insurance Company ought to have been exonerated from its liability on this count alone. He further contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in disbelieving the statement of DW-1 Jayesh Jagarwal, who has clearly stated that the said vehicle was insured for a period from 30th August, 2006 to 29th August, 2007 vide Insurance Policy No. 3003/1092044/00/000, without risk of any passenger and the cover note No. GD3137067 filed with the application as never issued by the appellant Insurance Company and therefore, the learned Tribunal erred in affixing the liability of compensation of the appellant Insurance Company. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Manish Jain, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 6 has vehemently submitted that the findings of the Tribunal that vehicle was insured with the appellant on the date of accident is based upon appreciation of evidence on record and document filed by the parties. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Manish Jain, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 6 has vehemently submitted that the findings of the Tribunal that vehicle was insured with the appellant on the date of accident is based upon appreciation of evidence on record and document filed by the parties. According to him the cover note is always issued after receiving the sum of the premium and after issuing the cover note the issuance of policy by the insurer is only a procedural formality. As soon as the cover note is issued and the same is not cancelled by adotping some proper procedure and under intimation to the insured then it cannot be deemed that the risk cover by the cover note has been cancelled. By referring the cover note by which risk of Vikram loading tempo was covered on which endorsement of cancelled written by the insurer, as said regarding such cancellation neither a date nor any endorsement was made. In such circumstances, this cannot be deemed to be cancelled. He further submitted that learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence of DW-1 came to the conclusion that vide cover note No. GD3137067 the offending new vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. It is also held that the amount of premium was paid in cash at the time of preparation of the cover note. Hence, merely on account of Exts. D. I to D. 5, the cover note could not be held to be cancelled. Thus, the Tribunal has not committed any error in relying upon the cover note No. GD3137607 and on holding that the premium was paid in cash, by the owner of the vehicle. According to his submission, there was sufficient circumstances to saddle the liability against the insurer, the appellant prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Having heard, learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that due to alleged accident made by the offending Vikram loading tempo driven by respondent No. 7 in rash and negligent manner the predecessors of respondent Nos. 1 to 6, Nanalalji Bhil, died and they have been deprived by dependency and also love and affection and his company and regarding such accident there is sufficient material available on record. Hence, the Trial Court has not committed any error in passing the award in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 6. 1 to 6, Nanalalji Bhil, died and they have been deprived by dependency and also love and affection and his company and regarding such accident there is sufficient material available on record. Hence, the Trial Court has not committed any error in passing the award in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 6. It is not in dispute that the Insurance Company after coming to know that cover note No. GD 3137067 has not prepared by the appellant-Insurance Company, lodged any report, as per cover note a sum of Rs. 3,687/- was paid in cash. Learned Tribunal in para 31 of the impugned award has considered the fact that Ext. D. 1 is policy issued by the appellant. In page No. 3 at A to A place it is written that cover note be issued whereas, in Ext., D.2. to D.7, this fact has not been mentioned Ext. C.1, which is photo copy of cover note No. GD 313 7067 issued for the period from 14th July, 2006 to 13th July, 2007. This cover note was valid on the date of accident i.e. 7th August, 2006. The sole contention of the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company was that no premium was paid and, therefore, this cover note was cancelled. There is no evidence or ledger or any other documents to prove that on the date of accident premium was not paid. On appreciation of the evidence on record and material available on cover note this Court is of the view that learned Tribunal has not committed any error on holding that on the date of accident i.e. 7th August, 2006 the offending Vikram tempo was insured with the appellant vide cover note No. GD 3137067 and holding that Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount of compensation alongwith the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. This question had been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Praveen Vaidya Vs. Kailash and Others, (2007) ACJ 2100, in which, it was held as under: So far as exonerating Respondent No. 6 insurer is concerned, it appears that the Tribunal had committed grave error in not saddling the liability against the insurer. Although the appellant had neither failed his reply nor produced any evidence on his behalf. Kailash and Others, (2007) ACJ 2100, in which, it was held as under: So far as exonerating Respondent No. 6 insurer is concerned, it appears that the Tribunal had committed grave error in not saddling the liability against the insurer. Although the appellant had neither failed his reply nor produced any evidence on his behalf. In spite of it, on admission of insurer that the cover note was issued and the risk was covered but on account of non-payment of the premium the same was cancelled on the same day. It was duty of the insurer to prove the cancellation of such cover note by some reliable and admissible evidence and proposition of law, although the Ext. D 1 the original cover note was produced from the custody of the insurer on which the endorsement of cancelled is written, we have not found any evidence on record or any document showing when and by whom and also under what procedure it was cancelled. If these thing are not proved on record then merely on the basis of depositions of some witnesses examined on behalf of the insurer, it cannot be assumed that the cover note was cancelled in few hours from the time of issuing it. Although, if the premium is paid through cheque and the same is dishonoured and the same is intimated to the insured then in such circumstances insurer can be exonerated but when the cover note was issued showing the cash payment of the premium then without any cogent, reliable and admissible evidence, the same cannot be deemed to be cancelled. If it was cancelled on the cover note, some endorsement should have been made by concerned officer with proper explanation. But, neither the endorsement is there nor the signature of the concerned officer is there regarding cancellation. Although in same factual matrix this question was raised before the High Court of Orissa and the same was answered by His Lordship Mr. Justice A. Pasayat who then was the judge of this High Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Madhab Chandra Das and Others, (1994) ACJ 890. 7. Although in same factual matrix this question was raised before the High Court of Orissa and the same was answered by His Lordship Mr. Justice A. Pasayat who then was the judge of this High Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Madhab Chandra Das and Others, (1994) ACJ 890. 7. In view of the aforesaid precedent, if the case, at hand is examined then it is apparent that answer of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Praveen Vaidya v. Kailash and Others (supra), is directly applicable here also, because the procedure and manner in which cover note was cancelled has not been proved by the appellant by any cogent and admissible evidence. Therefore, it is held that the Tribunal had not committed any error in saddling the liability against the insurer, hence, the finding of the Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is warranted. The appeal of the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed. 8. In respect of enhancement of compensation, learned Counsel for the claimants had contended that learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the income of the deceased @ Rs. 1,000/- per month, whereas he was skilled and experienced person and doing job of loading and unloading in goods vehicle and he was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month, It is also submitted that the monthly income of the deceased and its dependency taken by the learned Tribunal is erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record. Considering the fact that on the date of accident deceased was skilled and experience person and doing the job of loading and unloading in goods vehicle and thus, he must be earning a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the learned Tribunal had committed an error in deducting l/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, it ought to have been deducted as l/5th of the monthly income looking to the larger number of dependents and their ages. After deducting Rs. 7,200/- (1/5) towards personal and living expenses of the deceased the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 28,800/- Rs. 36,000/- -7,200/- = 28, 800/-). After deducting Rs. 7,200/- (1/5) towards personal and living expenses of the deceased the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 28,800/- Rs. 36,000/- -7,200/- = 28, 800/-). At the time of death deceased was 25 years of age and, therefore, on applying the multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency comes to (Rs. 28,800 x 17 = Rs. 4,89,600/-). On the other heads like funeral charges, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, etc. etc., a sum of Rs. 30,000/- is just and proper. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 5,19,600/-. After deducting the amount already awarded by the Tribunal the enhanced amount comes to (Rs. 5,19,600 - 1,45,500/- = Rs. 3,74,100/-). The enhanced amount shall carry the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the application till its realization. 9. In the result, the appeal of Insurer is dismissed and the appeal of claimants of enhancement of compensation is partly allowed.