JUDGMENT : S.K. Seth, J. The only short point involved in this appeal is whether the learned Claims Tribunal was justified in exonerating the insurance company from the liability to pay the compensation. Facts, in brief, are as under : One Shantaram aged about 95 years met with an accident and he died because of injuries sustained in the accident. His son preferred a claim petition claiming compensation from the owner, driver and the insurer of offending vehicle which is a motor cycle. 2. The insurance company denied its liability to pay the compensation on various grounds including the ground that on the date of accident, there was no valid insurance coverage. 3. Learned Claims Tribunal after recording the evidence and hearing the arguments found that appellant is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs. 62,000 from the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle and exonerated the insurance company from its vicarious liability to pay any amount of compensation. It is this award and especially the exoneration of insurance company which is under challenge in this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that from bare perusal of insurance certificate-cum-policy, Exh. D1, which is available on record, it is apparent that lifetime premium was paid against the statutory third party risk and, therefore, the insurance company was wrongly exonerated. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for insurance company submitted that lifetime payment of premium was valid only as long as registration of vehicle was in force. Upon expiry of certificate of registration, the insurance comes to an end automatically unless it is renewed. In this connection, he invited attention to the provisions contained in section 41(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as under : "41(7). A certificate of registration issued under sub-section (3), whether before or after the commencement of this Act, in respect of a motor vehicle, other than a transport vehicle, shall, subject to the provisions contained in this Act, be valid only for a period of fifteen years from the date of issue of such certificate and shall be renewable." 6. Perusal of the insurance policy, Exh. D1, also shows that the policy period was from 2058 hours to 21/6 (sic) with an endorsement 'to the cancellation of registration'. Thus, it clearly shows that policy was as per section 41(7) of the Act. Perusal of the insurance policy, Exh. D1, also shows that the policy period was from 2058 hours to 21/6 (sic) with an endorsement 'to the cancellation of registration'. Thus, it clearly shows that policy was as per section 41(7) of the Act. Un-disputedly, the accident had taken place after expiry of registration certificate and in this view of the matter, court below has rightly exonerated the insurance company from payment of compensation. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of S. Iyyapan Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Another (2013) 7 SCC 62 , has held that the insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation, notwithstanding violation of condition of insurance policy. That is not the case here. Here, the registration itself has come to an end and in absence of its renewal, the insurance policy cannot stand on its own legs. Before concluding, in our considered opinion, the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper for the death of one Shantaram. Thus, we find no merit and substance in this appeal. In view of the foregoing discussion, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.