JUDGMENT A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. 1. Present appeal has been filed by the original claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the said Act) as they are aggrieved by the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur dismissing the Claim Petition filed under Section 166 of the said Act. On 29/03/1991, one Pramod was riding his motorcycle when he was hit by a truck bearing No. PCT-8531. Said Pramod was seriously injured and he succumbed to his injuries thereafter. On 28/11/1991 the parents of the deceased filed proceedings under Section 166 of the said Act seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.6 lakhs from the owner of said truck and the respondent No. 2 herein. 2. The respondent No. 2Insurance Company filed its written statement vide Exhibit-39 on 26/02/2001 and took the stand that as per its record the vehicle mentioned was insured in the name of one Buta Singh and not the respondent No. 1. It was further stated that said Buta Singh had paid premium of Rs.5754/by cheque dated 24/07/1990 after which the respondent No. 2 issued a cover note. However as the said cheque was dishonoured, the policy issued was cancelled by issuing letter dated 08/08/1990. Hence it was the stand of the respondent No. 2 that on the date of accident, the vehicle in question was not insured. It was also stated that said Buta Singh was not joined as party in the proceedings. 3. During pendency of the proceedings, the Claims Tribunal by order dated 21/06/1997 awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/as no fault liability in favour of the appellant. This order was challenged by the respondent No. 2 in F.A. No. 395 of 1999. Aforesaid appeal however, was withdrawn on 02/07/2004. 4. Before the Claims Tribunal, the elder brother of the deceased was examined vide Exhibit-27. He stated that his brother was earning Rs.2500/to Rs.3000/per month when met with an accident. He further stated that his brother was aged about 20 years at that time. In his cross examination, the only suggestion given was that the claimants had given fake registration number of the truck which suggestion was denied. Another witness examined was one Anil Deshmukh vide Exhibit-53 who had witnessed the accident in question. He further stated that his brother was aged about 20 years at that time. In his cross examination, the only suggestion given was that the claimants had given fake registration number of the truck which suggestion was denied. Another witness examined was one Anil Deshmukh vide Exhibit-53 who had witnessed the accident in question. He stated that the offending truck was being driven at high speed while the motor cycle on which the deceased was riding was in moderate speed. On behalf of respondent No. 2, its Administrative Officer was examined vide Exhibit-56. In his deposition he referred to the cheque for the amount of premium not being honoured and further intimation given to the insured that the policy was cancelled. In his cross examination, he stated that though notice of the proceedings was issued in the year 1992, the written statement was filed on 26/02/2001. Said witness admitted that the acknowledgment showing receipt of letter intimating cancellation of the policy to Mr Buta Singh was not filed on record. The suggestion that Insurance Company was not in possession of the policy of insurance was also denied. The learned Member of the Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that as the policy in question had been cancelled prior to the date of the accident, the Insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation. As the owner of the vehicle was not impleaded, the claim for compensation came to dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 5. Shri S.A. Kalbande, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased being a third party coupled with the fact that cancellation of policy of insurance had not been intimated to the registering authority as required under Section 147(4) of the said Act, the appellants could not be held disentitled to receive the amount of compensation at least from respondent No. 2. He submitted that the policy of insurance was never placed on record nor was witness No. 1 examined on behalf of the claimants crossexamined on that aspect. He referred to the FormAA placed on record to indicate that the person shown as owner of vehicle had been impleaded in said proceedings. Moreover even the acknowledgment of the letter said to be issued to Mr Buta Singh was not placed on record. By relying upon the judgments in Oriental Insurance Co. He referred to the FormAA placed on record to indicate that the person shown as owner of vehicle had been impleaded in said proceedings. Moreover even the acknowledgment of the letter said to be issued to Mr Buta Singh was not placed on record. By relying upon the judgments in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Inderjit Kaur and Others, 1998 ACJ 123; Wilson vs. Vasantha Kumar and Others, 2015 ACJ 1524 and Daddappa and Others vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2008 ACJ 581 it was submitted that the claim under Section 166 of the said Act of a third party could not be defeated on this ground. It was then submitted that as per the evidence on record, the deceased was earning Rs.2500/to Rs.3000/per month and he was aged about 20 years when the accident took place. Considering the nature of evidence it was submitted that just and proper compensation deserves to be awarded to the appellants. 6. Shri G.N. Khanzode, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 opposed aforesaid submissions. According to him, the fact regarding cancellation of policy had been duly intimated to the owner of the vehicle and as the accident took place after the policy was cancelled, the Insurance Company could not be held liable to satisfy the claim. It was further submitted that the original owner of the vehicle was not impleaded in the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. Due to such non-impleadment, the Insurance Company could not cross-examine the original owner. It was therefore submitted that the Claims Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim for compensation. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of learned Single Judge in United India Insurance Co. vs. Sampat s/o Baburao Waghmare and Others, 2014 (6) Mh. L.J. 7. The following points arise for consideration:- (i) Whether the Insurance Company can be absolved of its liability in the facts of the case? (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation? With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the records of the case. I have also given due consideration to their respective submissions. 8. As to point No. 1 : The material on record indicates that the accident occurred on 29/03/1991 when the deceased was hit by a truck bearing No. PCT-8531. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the records of the case. I have also given due consideration to their respective submissions. 8. As to point No. 1 : The material on record indicates that the accident occurred on 29/03/1991 when the deceased was hit by a truck bearing No. PCT-8531. On the basis of information received under the AA Form, the proceedings for compensation were filed against the registered owner as disclosed in the AA Form as well as the Insurance Company. Thereafter an order under Section 140 of the said Act came to be passed on 21/06/1997. Though the Insurance Company-respondent No. 2 filed First Appeal No. 395 of 1999, the same was withdrawn on 02/07/2004. The Insurance Company filed its written statement vide Exhibit-39 on 26/02/2001. The stand taken was that though the policy in question was issued on 24/07/1990 as per the cover note, the same came to be cancelled as the amount of premium was not received. It was further the stand that the respondent No. 1 was not the owner of vehicle but the same was owned by one Buta Singh. In the deposition of witness examined by Insurance Company vide Exhibit-56, there is reference only to issuance of letter to Buta Singh but acknowledgement of receipt of said letter was not filed on record. It was further not stated that as required by provisions of Section 147( 4) of the said Act, any intimation was given to the registering authority. 8. The provisions of Section 147(4) of the said Act cast a duty upon the insurer to notify the fact of a cover note not being followed by a valid policy to the registering authority within period of seven days from the expiry of period of validity to the cover note. The aforesaid provisions have been considered by the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company (supra) and Deddappa and Others (supra). It has been held therein that in so far as a third party is concerned, it is not concerned with the cancellation of the policy and on failure to comply with provisions of Section 147(4) of the said Act, the insurance Company cannot be absolved of its liability. These decisions have been followed by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in case of Wilson (supra). These decisions have been followed by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in case of Wilson (supra). The decision relied upon in the case of United India (supra) is on the aspect of fraud and is distinguishable on facts. The legal position is therefore clear that in absence of the insurer intimating the registering authority about cancellation of its cover note, its liability qua a third party does not get extinguished. In the present case, it is not the stand of the respondent No. 2 that in terms of Section 147(4) of the said Act any such intimation was given to the registering authority. Point No. 1 is accordingly answered by holding that the respondent No. 2 cannot be absolved of its liability qua the third party. 9. As to point No. 2 : Once it is found that the appellants are entitled for compensation, it would be necessary to determine fair and just compensation. In the deposition of the brother of the deceased, it was stated that the deceased was aged about 20 years getting salary of Rs.2500-3000 per month. By accepting the lower amount, the average monthly salary can be taken to Rs.2500/. As the deceased was unmarried an amount of 50% would have to be deducted and same would come to Rs.1250/per month. Annual income would be Rs.15,000/and by taking multiplier of 18, the total of loss of dependency would be Rs.2,70,000/. Considering the amount of Rs.1 lakh towards loss of love and affection and by granting further amount for funeral expenses, total amount of compensation of Rs.4 lakhs is found to be just and reasonable in the facts of the present case. This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from 28/11/1991 till realization. Point No. 2 is answered accordingly. 10. In view of aforesaid, the following order is passed:- (i) The Claim Petition filed by the appellants is allowed. (ii) The appellants are held entitled for an amount of Rs.4 lakhs which is payable by respondent No. 2 with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from 28/11/1991 till realisation. The amount of compensation shall be paid to appellant No. 2 Pushpa Vallabhdas Mundhada as it is submitted that appellant No. 1 son Dilip has expired. (iii) Remedies of the respondent No. 2 against the owner of the offending vehicle are kept open. The amount of compensation shall be paid to appellant No. 2 Pushpa Vallabhdas Mundhada as it is submitted that appellant No. 1 son Dilip has expired. (iii) Remedies of the respondent No. 2 against the owner of the offending vehicle are kept open. (iv) First appeal is partly allowed in aforesaid terms but with no order as to costs.