Judgment 1. The appellant/3rd respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A. (MD).No.1486 of 2008, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.1748 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No. I, Tirunelveli. 2. The petitioner, has filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.1748 of 2006, claiming a compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-from the respondents, for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. It was submitted that on 08.08.2006, at about 01.30 p.m., when the petitioner was proceeding on his cycle on the Tirunelveli to Nagercoil main road, opposite to the Nambiyanvilai Esakkiamman Temple, from north towards south, the 1st and 2nd respondent's lorry bearing registration No.TN-67M-2261, coming on the same road from south towards north and driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. In the impact, the petitioner sustained severe injuries and was immediately admitted at the Valliyur Thiraviyum Hospital, wherein first aid was given. Subsequently, the petitioner took treatment at Nagarkoil Thiraviyum Hospital from 08.08.2006 to 09.08.2006, as an inpatient and later on took treatment at Galaxy Hospital, Tirunelveli from 09.08.2006 to 06.09.2006, as an inpatient. Due to the disability sustained by the petitioner in the accident, the petitioner is not able to do his work as before. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim as against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents. 3. The 1st respondent in his counter has submitted that the Taurus lorry bearing registration No.TN-67M-2261, which was owned by him was sold through one Rajamani, through a sale agreement, to the 2nd respondent on 09.07.2006 and that all the documents regarding the vehicle had been handed over to him. It was submitted that as the accident had taken place on 08.08.2006, the 1st respondent is not a necessary party in the claim and hence the claim as against him should be dismissed. 4. The 2nd respondent in his counter has submitted that he is not the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-67M-2261 and that as per the registration certificate of the vehicle, the vehicle was owned by the 1st respondent at the time of accident. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim as against him. 5. 4. The 2nd respondent in his counter has submitted that he is not the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-67M-2261 and that as per the registration certificate of the vehicle, the vehicle was owned by the 1st respondent at the time of accident. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim as against him. 5. The 3rd respondent, in his counter has submitted that the accident had been caused only due to the negligence of the petitioner as he had proceeded in his cycle in the middle of the road, without seeing the on-coming lorry. It was submitted that the 1st respondent had issued a cheque, towards premium for the vehicle, to the 3rd respondent and that when the said cheque was presented for collection in the bank on 28.03.2006, it was returned unpaid due to "insufficient funds" in the account of the 1st respondent. Hence, the 3rd respondent had sent a notice to the 1st respondent on 18.04.2006, stating that the policy taken by him had been cancelled. It was submitted that the concerned RTO authorities were also issued a notice regarding above cancellation of policy. It was submitted that only the 1st and 2nd respondent's can be held liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 6. The 1st respondent in his counter has submitted that the 2nd and 3rd respondents colluded together in order to make the 1st respondent suffer undue monetary loss. 7. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Was the accident caused by the negligence of the driver of the Taurus lorry bearing registration No.TN-67M-2261?; (2) Who is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner?; (3) Is the petitioner entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation which he is entitled to get? 8. On the petitioner's side, two witnesses were examined as PW.1 and PW.2 and fourteen documents were marked as exhibits P1 to P14 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-charge sheet; Ex.P3-copy of judgment; Ex.P4-Copy of wound certificate; Ex.P5-discharge summary; Ex.P6-scan report; Ex.P7-Medical bills; Ex.P8-hospital bills; Ex.P9-salary certificate; Ex.P10-discharge summary; Ex.P11-x rays; Ex.P12-scan; Ex.P13-disability certificate; Ex.P14-x rays . 8. On the petitioner's side, two witnesses were examined as PW.1 and PW.2 and fourteen documents were marked as exhibits P1 to P14 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R; Ex.P2-charge sheet; Ex.P3-copy of judgment; Ex.P4-Copy of wound certificate; Ex.P5-discharge summary; Ex.P6-scan report; Ex.P7-Medical bills; Ex.P8-hospital bills; Ex.P9-salary certificate; Ex.P10-discharge summary; Ex.P11-x rays; Ex.P12-scan; Ex.P13-disability certificate; Ex.P14-x rays . On the respondents side, three witnesses were examined and ten documents were marked as exhibits R1 to R10 namely: Ex.R1-sale agreement; Ex.R2-policy; Ex.R3-copy of policy; Ex.R4-Cheque; Ex.R5-bank memo; Ex.R6-cancellation of policy; Ex.R7-letter; Ex.R8-receipt; Ex.R9-letter received from postal department and Ex.R10-copy of letter sent to RTO Officer. 9. PW.1, the petitioner had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made by him in the claim regarding manner of accident and in support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P1-F.I.R. It is seen that the complaint as per the F.I.R had been given by one Thavasikani. Based on the complaint given as per Ex.P1, the Police had conducted an enquiry and had filed the final report i.e., Ex.P2, as against the driver of the 1st respondent's lorry. It is seen that the driver of the 1st respondent's lorry had also admitted his guilt before the criminal Court and paid the fine as per the copy of Criminal Court judgment marked as Ex.P3. Though it was contended on the side of the respondents that the driver of the lorry had not been negligent and that he had not caused the accident, no witness or documentary evidence had been produced to prove this contention. Hence, the Tribunal, on scrutiny of evidence of PW.1 and on scrutiny of exhibits marked as P1 and P3 held that the accident had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. 10. RW.1, Mahendran, had adduced evidence that on 09.07.2006, he had entered into a sale agreement, for the lorry with the 2nd respondent's husband, in front of witnesses and that on that day, he had received a sum of Rs.50,000/-as advance and handed over the documents pertaining to the lorry to him. On cross examination, RW.1 had admitted that the 2nd respondent's name had not been entered in the agreement and that the agreement had been executed in favour of the husband of the 2nd respondent. He had also admitted that the registration certificate for the vehicle exists in the name of the 1st respondent only. On cross examination, RW.1 had admitted that the 2nd respondent's name had not been entered in the agreement and that the agreement had been executed in favour of the husband of the 2nd respondent. He had also admitted that the registration certificate for the vehicle exists in the name of the 1st respondent only. Hence, the tribunal on considering that the 1st respondent had not taken any steps to get the ownership transferred in the registering authority under postal certificate intimating transfer of ownership, held that the 1st respondent was the owner of the Taurus lorry bearing registration No.TN-67/m-2261. 11. RW.3, Venkatasubramanian, the Senior Assistant in the 3rd respondent's firm adduced evidence that as the 1st respondent had not paid the premium for the policy of insurance taken on 18.03.2006, the policy had been annulled and in support of his evidence, he had marked the exhibits listed as P2 to P10. On scrutiny of the exhibits marked as P2 to P10, it is seen that the 1st respondent had issued a cheque for premium towards policy on 17.03.2006 and that the 3rd respondent had issued a policy valid from 18.03.2006 to 17.03.2007. Subsequently, when the cheque for premium was presented at the bank, it had been returned unpain on 28.03,2006 due to insufficient funds. It is seen that the 3rd respondent had sent notices to the 1st respondent and the concerned RTO authorities cancelling the policy of insurance issued to the 1st respondent. It is also seen that the 1st respondent, even after receipt of notice, had not paid the premium and renewed the policy. 12. However, the Tribunal relying on the judgment made by the Kerala High Court, as per the citation in 2006 ACJ page 106, held that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation in a motor accident even if it has cancelled the policy for non-payment of premium due to dishoour of cheque, in respect of accident that has taken place after cancellation but within the period specified in the policy. The Tribunal held that the 3rd respondent should pay the compensation assessed; to the petitioner and that it could initiate recovery proceedings against the 1st respondent, after such deposit has been made, without filing a separate suit. 13. The Tribunal held that the 3rd respondent should pay the compensation assessed; to the petitioner and that it could initiate recovery proceedings against the 1st respondent, after such deposit has been made, without filing a separate suit. 13. PW.1, had further adduced evidence that he had sustained fractures of bones in his left head and left forehead and that as the blood had clotted in these areas, he had remained in a stage of coma for ten days. He deposed that he had received first aid at Thiraviyum Hospital, Valliyur and subsequently had taken treatment at Thiraviyum hospital, Nagercoil for two days and that he had taken treatment at Galaxy Hospital, Tirunelveli from 09.08.2006 ti 06.09.2006, as an inpatient. He deposed that he had been forced to take medical leave for 175 days due to the accident. He deposed that due to the injuries sustained by him in his head, he experiences headache, Giddiness and loss of memory and in support of his evidence, he had marked the exhibits listed as P4 to P10. 14. PW.2, Dr. Ramaguru had adduced evidence that he had examined the petitioner on 02.07.2007 and found that the nerves in the petitioner's brain had been affected and that there was hemorrhage in the petitioner’s brain and that due to this the petitioner experiences headache and pain in his neck and giddiness. He deposed that a portion of the left side body of the petitioner had been paralyzed and that the petitioner speech has become incoherent. He deposed that the petitioner has sustained 55% disability and in support of his evidence, he had marked Ex.P13-disability certificate and Ex.P14-x rays. 15. On scrutiny of Ex.P9, it is seen that the petitioner has been employed as a Personal Assistant at the State Education Department and earning Rs.17,378/- per month. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence awarded a compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner under the head of pain and suffering; Rs.55,000/- under the head of permanent disability; Rs.86,337/- towards medical expenses as per exhibits P7 and P8; Rs.5,000/- towards nutrition; Rs.2,500/- towards transport expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,68,837/-to the petitioner, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, within one month from the date of its order. In total, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,68,837/-to the petitioner, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment of compensation, within one month from the date of its order. The 3rd respondent was permitted to recover the said deposit of compensation made by them, from the 1st respondent, by initiating recovery proceedings against him. The claim as against the 2nd respondent was dismissed. 16. Aggrieved by the award passed by the tribunal, the 3rd respondent/New India Assurance Company Limited has preferred the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the Tribunal has failed to note that the cheque issued by the owner towards premium has been dishonoured and hence the appellant has cancelled the policy as early as on 18.04.2006 and it was duly informed to the insured as well as the RTO officials. It was contended that the tribunal failed to note that the tribunal ought to have passed the award only against the owner of the vehicle since there is no subsisting contract between the appellant and the owner of the vehicle. Hence, it was prayed to set aside the award passed by the tribunal. 17. The learned counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant had spent about of Rs.74,000/- towards medical expenses. Besides this, he was on medical leave for about 175 days. The claimant had sustained brain injuries and bone fracture injuries. Therefore, the doctor had assessed the disability at 55%. The Tribunal had not awarded adequate compensation under the head of transport expenses. The Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation under the head of attender charges and nutrition. 18. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that he is not the owner of the vehicle and he is not liable to pay any compensation. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent argued that the vehicle was transferred to the 1st respondent namely Balamurugan after receiving sale consideration for the vehicle. As per details mentioned in the RC book, it is evident that the vehicle had been transferred in the name of the 1st respondent. 19. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent argued that the vehicle was transferred to the 1st respondent namely Balamurugan after receiving sale consideration for the vehicle. As per details mentioned in the RC book, it is evident that the vehicle had been transferred in the name of the 1st respondent. 19. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any short coming in the findings arrived at for determining liability and quantum of compensation. As per this Court records, it is seen that the entire compensation amount had already been deposited. The pay and recovery theory ordered by the Tribunal is unaltered. 20. It is open to the claimant to withdraw the entire compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1748 of 2006, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No. I, Tirunelveli, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order, subject to deduction of withdrawals made, if any. 21. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the Award and Decree, passed inM.C.O.P.No.1748 of 2006, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No. I, Tirunelveli, is confirmed, dated 30.05.2008. No costs.