JUDGMENT : P.K. Jaiswal, J. This appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 8.8.2008 passed by the Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kukshi, Distt. Dhar, in Claim Case No. 24 of 2008 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,43,400 as compensation to the claimants and directed the respondents to pay the amount of compensation. The respondent No. 3 received the summons on 19.2.2009 and thereafter, on 18.3.2009, filed a cross-objection in respect of exoneration on the ground that at the time of accident offending vehicle was not insured and cover note filed is forged, the learned Tribunal committed an error in not exonerating the insurance company and directing the respondents that they are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 11.8.2007 at about 5 p.m., in the evening when the deceased Shankar was standing near the flour mill of village Badkatch, at the side of the road, one truck came from the opposite side. The driver of the said truck driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently dashed him, as a result Shankar died. The appellants-claimants had filed a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the ground that at the time of death deceased was 20 years of age and he was working as assistant of blacksmith and his salary was Rs. 4,000 per month and prayed for compensation of Rs. 13,00,000. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte before the Claims Tribunal. Respondent No. 3 filed its written statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the cover note, Exh. A5, is forged and fabricated document and no such cover note was issued by insurance company. In support of the said contention Jayesh Jayarwal, Law Manager of respondent No. 3, insurance company, was examined before Claims Tribunal. This witness in his statement has deposed that cover note No. GF 5757550 is fabricated document, no such cover note has been issued by the insurance company. In support of the said contention Jayesh Jayarwal, Law Manager of respondent No. 3, insurance company, was examined before Claims Tribunal. This witness in his statement has deposed that cover note No. GF 5757550 is fabricated document, no such cover note has been issued by the insurance company. This witness in his affidavit under Order 18, rule 4 of CPC has further deposed that cover note is prepared in four copies, one copy is given to the customer, one copy is given to R.T.O./bank, one copy is annexed with approval form and one copy is kept in the office file. Original cover note book is Exh. D1. This witness has been cross-examined by the claimants as NAW 1. In his cross-examination, it is deposed that Saurabh was employee of the insurance company, respondent No. 3. He was posted as Sales Manager. NAW 1 has no knowledge about issuance of cover note book, Exh. NA 1. In his cross-examination, this witness has further admitted that no police report has been lodged regarding the issuance of forged cover note nor any notice was issued to the owner of the vehicle or Road Transport Authority. He has further deposed that as per report of the investigator, cover note is forged but the said report has not been filed nor investigator has been examined before this court. 2. Learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that in absence of the evidence of the investigator and admission made by Jayesh Jayarwal, NAW 1, Law Manager of the insurance company, the insurance company has failed to prove that cover note No. GF 5757550 issued by the respondent No. 3 is forged and fabricated document or at the time of accident offending truck was not insured with the insurance company, respondent No. 3. 3. In respect of the income of the deceased, it is held that as per Exh. A6, the salary certificate issued by Radheyshyam Lohar, the deceased was working under him and he was paying Rs. 125 per day as his salary, but he was not examined before the Claims Tribunal and, therefore, it has been held that the claimants have failed to prove the salary and assessed his income at the rate of Rs. 80 per day, i.e., Rs. 2,400 per month. 125 per day as his salary, but he was not examined before the Claims Tribunal and, therefore, it has been held that the claimants have failed to prove the salary and assessed his income at the rate of Rs. 80 per day, i.e., Rs. 2,400 per month. At the time of the accident the deceased was 20 years of age and, therefore, after deducting 1/3rd for personal and living expenses the Tribunal assessed the loss of dependency at the rate of Rs. 1,600 per month and on applying the multiplier of 17, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,26,400 as compensation (Rs. 1,600 x 12 x 17). On other conventional heads a total sum of Rs. 17,000 has been awarded to the appellants. 4. In respect of income it is submitted that from the statement of AW 2 it is clear that deceased was working as labourer and he was earning Rs. 125 per day. Radheyshyam Lohar has not been examined by the appellants. Considering the fact that the deceased was working as a labourer and, therefore, he must be earning at least Rs. 100 per day, i.e., Rs. 3,000 per month. After deducting 1/3rd for his personal and living expenses, the amount of loss of dependency comes to Rs. 24,000 per annum. On applying the multiplier of 17 the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 4,08,000 (Rs. 24,000 x 17 = Rs. 4,08,000). On other conventional heads the appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 32,000. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 4,40,000. 5. In respect of cross-objection of the insurance company, Mr. R.J. Pandit, learned counsel for the insurance company, has contended that the Tribunal has failed to consider the fact that at the time of accident offending truck was not insured with the insurance company and has grossly erred in not considering the fact that the cover note No. GF 5757550, Exh. A5, showing the vehicle to be insured is not valid as no premium was paid to the insurance company on the said date and all the four original copies of the cover note are with the appellant insurance company, which clearly proves that cover note is forged and fabricated. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in believing the version of the appellant and in disbelieving the version of the appellant insurance company. 6. It is also contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in believing the version of the appellant and in disbelieving the version of the appellant insurance company. 6. He further contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in disbelieving the statement of Jayesh Jayarwal, DW 1, who has clearly stated that no such cover note was issued by the insurance company and the cover note No. GF 5757550 filed with the application was never issued by the insurance company and, therefore, the learned Tribunal erred in affixing the liability of the compensation on the insurance company, respondent No. 3. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Manish Jain, the learned counsel for the appellants, has vehemently submitted that the finding of the Tribunal that vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 3 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 premium amount 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 adopting some proper procedure and under intimation to the insured, then it cannot be deemed that the risk covered by the cover note has been cancelled. In respect of the said contention he drew my attention to Exh. A5 and submitted that as per this cover note premium of Rs. 24,530 was paid vide cheque No. 844340 dated 4.7.2007 on State Bank of India. In such circumstances this cannot be deemed to be cancelled or forged. He further submits that no statement of Saurabh was recorded nor the statement of investigator was recorded before the Tribunal. It is also contended that learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence of DW 1 came to the conclusion that vide cover note No. GF 5757550 the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company, the respondent No. 3. According to his submission there was sufficient ground to saddle the liability against the insurer, respondent No. 3, and prayed for dismissal of the cross-objection. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that due to alleged accident caused by the offending truck driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner the deceased Shankar died. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that due to alleged accident caused by the offending truck driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner the deceased Shankar died. The appellants are mother and father of the deceased. Hence the Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the award in favour of appellants. The learned Tribunal in the impugned award has considered the fact that Exh. A5 is the policy issued by the respondent No. 3. The cover note was valid on the date of accident, i.e., on 11.8.2007. The sole contention of learned counsel for the insurance company is that cover note is forged and fabricated document. There is no evidence or ledger or any other document to prove that the cover note is forged or fabricated document. No F.I.R. was lodged against the person who had issued the cover note nor Saurabh has been examined by the insurance company. The investigator who prepared the report has not been examined before the Tribunal. On the appreciation of the evidence and material available on record, this court is of the view that learned Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that on the date of accident, i.e., on 11.8.2007, the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 3 vide cover note No. GF 5757550 and holding that insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation along with the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. This question has been considered by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Praveen Vaidya v. Kailash, 2007 ACJ 2100 (MP), in which it was held as under: So far as exonerating respondent No. 6, insurer, is concerned, it appears that the Tribunal has committed grave error in not saddling the liability against the insurer. Although the appellant has neither filed 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 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 Exh. 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 Exh. D1, the original cover note, was produced from the custody of the insurer on which the endorsement '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 things 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 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 then 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 the cancellation. Although in same factual matrix this question was raised before the High Court of Orissa and the same was answered by his Lordship Justice A. Pasayat who then was the judge of this High Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Madhab Chandra Das, 1994 ACJ 890 (Orissa). In the result, the appeal for enhancement of compensation filed by claimants is allowed in part. The amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 3,43.400 to Rs. 4,40,000. After deducting the amount already awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the enhanced amount comes to Rs. 96,600 (Rs. 4,40,000 - Rs. 3,43,400 = Rs. 96,600). The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing the application till its realization. In the result, the cross-objection filed by the insurer is dismissed and appeal of the claimants for enhancement is partly allowed. No costs.