JUDGMENT : A.S. Chandurkar, J. This appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the said Act) at the instance of the Insurance Company takes exception to the Judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati by which the claim for compensation filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 has been allowed. 2. It is the case of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 that on 07/04/2007, the four year old child of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 met with an accident in front of their house while answering nature's call. Said child was hit by a truck owned by respondent No. 7 and driven by respondent No. 6. Appellants therefore claimed compensation of an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 3. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte. The appellant filed its written statement and took a plea that it was not liable to pay any compensation as claimed on the ground that the offending vehicle was not insured with it. It was further denied that the driver of the vehicle had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 4. Before the Claims Tribunal, the respondent No. 1 examined himself. The appellant also examined one witness for the purposes of denying its liability. By the impugned judgment, the Claims Tribunal held the appellant as well as the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 liable to pay compensation of Rs. 1,65,000/- to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Hence this appeal. 5. Shri D.N. Kukday, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Insurance Company could not have been saddled with the liability to pay compensation. It was submitted that though the owner of the vehicle had issued a cheque dated 21/06/2006 towards premium for the insurance policy, said cheque was dishonoured on 23/06/2006. Therefore the cover-note that was issued for the period from 22/06/2006 to 21/06/2007 was void. The accident having taken place on 07/04/2007, the Insurance Company could not have been held liable. It was further submitted that the fact that the amount of premium had not been received and that the policy had been cancelled had been duly informed to the owner of the vehicle as well as to the Regional Transport Authority. The accident having taken place on 07/04/2007, the Insurance Company could not have been held liable. It was further submitted that the fact that the amount of premium had not been received and that the policy had been cancelled had been duly informed to the owner of the vehicle as well as to the Regional Transport Authority. These communications were issued by registered post and therefore even if there was no acknowledgment of its receipt, in view of the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (for short, the Act of 1897), it was deemed that aforesaid communications had been received by the concerned parties. It was therefore submitted that in absence of any liability of the Insurance Company, there could not be even a direction to the appellant to first pay the amount of compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. It was then submitted that even if an order directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and then recover the same was to be passed, then the owner of the vehicle should be first called upon to furnish security to protect the interest of the appellant. It was also submitted that the deceased being a child aged four years, the quantum of compensation awarded was on a higher side. Same therefore deserved to be reduced. In support of his submissions the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments in : (i) V. Raja Kumari Vs. P. Subbarama Naidu and Another. (ii) Daddappa & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2008(1) ACC 1. (iii) Usha Rajesh Thapa Vs. Kalpana Arun Hankar. (iv) New India Assurance Company Ltd., Branch at Chandrapur Vs. Sau. Anjanabai Jadhav and Others, and (v) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Drakshayanamma. 6. On the other hand Shri P.R. Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 supported the impugned judgment. It was submitted that the claimants being third party, the Insurance Company could not be absolved of its liability to pay compensation. It was submitted that in the written statement filed by the Insurance Company, there was no specific plea regarding dishonour of the cheque that was issued towards the amount of premium. 1 to 5 supported the impugned judgment. It was submitted that the claimants being third party, the Insurance Company could not be absolved of its liability to pay compensation. It was submitted that in the written statement filed by the Insurance Company, there was no specific plea regarding dishonour of the cheque that was issued towards the amount of premium. It was submitted that in absence of any acknowledgment of intimation regarding non-receipt of premium and the policy being void having been placed on record, the question of any presumption under Section 27 of the Act of 1897 being available would not arise. It was submitted that the appellant ought to have obtained due acknowledgment of service of the communications issued by it. It was then submitted that the amount of compensation as paid was reasonable not warranting any reduction. The learned counsel further submitted that even if the appellant were to be exonerated from the liability, a direction to first pay the amount of compensation and subsequently recover the same could be issued. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in : (i) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satender and Others, (ii) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Zaharulnisha and Others, (iii) Kishan Gopal and Another Vs. Lala and Others, (iv) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bachubhai Chandubhai Vasava and Others, (v) Usha Aggarwal Vs. Parmod Kumar Gupta and Others, (vi) The United Commercial Bank Vs. Bhim Sain Makhija and Another. 7. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length. I have perused the records of the case. The following points arises for determination : (i) Whether the Insurance Company can be absolved of its liability to pay compensation ? (ii) Whether the judgment of the Claims Tribunal deserves to be interfered with ? For the purposes of considering the challenge to the impugned judgment, it would be necessary to first consider the pleadings of the appellant in its written statement vide Exhibit-13. Besides a plea of general denial, it was pleaded that the appellant had not insured the offending truck. On that basis, it was pleaded that the appellant was not liable to satisfy the claim for compensation. Besides a plea of general denial, it was pleaded that the appellant had not insured the offending truck. On that basis, it was pleaded that the appellant was not liable to satisfy the claim for compensation. The appellant had examined its Divisional Manager vide Exhibit-59 who stated that cheque dated 21/06/2006 issued by the owner of the truck towards the amount of premium was dishonoured and therefore on 27/06/2006 this fact was informed by registered post to the owner of the vehicle and to the Regional Transport Authority. The communication dated 27/06/2006 is at Exhibit-63 and the postal receipt of the same having been sent by registered post is at Exhibit-62. The relevant extract in postage book maintained by the appellant is at Exhibit-65. In his cross examination, said witness admitted that there was no acknowledgment placed on record to indicate delivery of aforesaid letters. He has further stated that no complaint was made in that regard with the postal authorities. It is thus clear from the evidence on record that an intimation was sent by the appellant by registered post to the owner of the vehicle and to the Regional Transport Authority of the fact that the amount of premium had not been received. Thus on the date of the accident the offending vehicle was not insured. That the claimants were third party is also not in dispute. 8. Under provisions of Section 147 of the said Act, it is the duty of the Insurance Company to inform the owner of the vehicle as well as the registering authority the fact that a cover-note issued by it has not been followed by a valid policy of insurance. It is the case of the appellant herein that on 27/06/2006 such intimation was duly given by registered post. The question therefore is with regard to service of aforesaid intimation to the owner of the vehicle. Perusal of Exhibit-62 indicates that the communication dated 27/06/2006 was addressed to the owner of the vehicle at the address mentioned in the cover-note. To indicate service of said communication the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon provisions of Section 27 of the Act of 1897. The record indicates that in the claim petition, the address of the owner shown is the same address that was mentioned on the cover-note. To indicate service of said communication the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon provisions of Section 27 of the Act of 1897. The record indicates that in the claim petition, the address of the owner shown is the same address that was mentioned on the cover-note. The record further indicates that the summons issued by the Claims Tribunal by registered post was not served on the owner of the vehicle and hence the claimants moved application vide Exhibit-14 seeking permission to have the notice published in a news-paper circulated at the last known address. This application was allowed by the Claims Tribunal on 14/09/2007 after which the notice came to be published in daily "Pledge" vide Exhibit-22. Thereafter the owner was proceeded ex-parte. The record of the present appeal indicates that even in this Court the owner of the vehicle could not be served by regular mode at the address mentioned on the cover-note and hence by order dated 11/03/2014 he was permitted to be served through paper publication. 9. The aforesaid therefore indicates that the owner of the vehicle was not served by regular mode either before the Claims Tribunal or in the present appeal on the address shown on the cover-note. For the purposes of deemed service of notice under provisions of Section 27 of the Act of 1897, one of the requirements is that the address mentioned on the letter should be correct. The fact that the owner of the vehicle was not served at the address mentioned on the cover-note when the Claims Tribunal issued notice of the proceedings disentitles the appellant to rely upon the presumption available under provisions of Section 27 of the Act of 1897. If the address mentioned on the communication is not found to be correct, the sender would not be in a position to rely upon the presumption available under Section 27 of the Act of 1897. Moreover no steps were taken by it to prove due service of its intimation as it could have examined the owner of the vehicle in that regard. Hence it cannot be said that in the present case, the owner of the vehicle was duly served with the intimation dated 27/06/2006. The judgment in the case of V. Rajakumari (supra) therefore does not assist the appellant. 10. Hence it cannot be said that in the present case, the owner of the vehicle was duly served with the intimation dated 27/06/2006. The judgment in the case of V. Rajakumari (supra) therefore does not assist the appellant. 10. Considering the beneficial nature of the provisions of the said Act as regards a third party, service of such intimation under Section 147(4) of the said Act is required to be duly proved. The decisions in National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) of the Gujarat High Court and in Usha Aggrawal (supra) of the Delhi High Court therefore support the case of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Similarly the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) also supports the case of respondent Nos. 1 to 5. The decisions in Usha Rajesh Thapa & Ors. (supra) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) are clearly distinguishable on facts. It is thus held that the appellant has failed to prove due service of intimation regarding cancellation of the Insurance Policy to the owner of the vehicle. The appellant is therefore liable to satisfy the claim for compensation made by the third party. Point No. (i) is answered accordingly and it is held that the Insurance Company cannot be absolved of its liability. 11. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is to be noted that the deceased was a boy aged four years. The Claims Tribunal has taken into consideration his age and on the basis of the concept of notional income has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards loss of income. Considering the observations of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Kishan Gopal and anr. (supra), it cannot be said that the amount of compensation as awarded is on a higher side warranting any reduction. Point No. (ii) is answered by holding that there is no case made out to interfere with the impugned judgment. 12. In view of aforesaid discussion, the judgment passed by the Claims Tribunal, Amravati in M.A.C.P. No. 203 of 2007 is confirmed. It is open for the appellant to recover the amount of compensation from respondent No. 7 in accordance with law. Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.