JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sunil B. Parikh for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. M.I. Mansuri for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 whereas learned advocate Mr. N.D. Buch for respondent No.7. 2. Perused the record. Appellant is original opponent No.3 in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.382 of 2003 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad district at Ahmedabad. Such claim petition was preferred by present respondent Nos. 1 to 5, claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for accidental death of one Sureshbhai D. Chauhan for the vehicular accident on 23.03.2003. On such fateful day, when driver of motor vehicle No. GJ 1 W 8451 was driving his vehicle rashly and negligently by disobeying rules for plying such goods vehicle and also the traffic rules, so as to endanger the life of human being on public road near Tajpur patia on Changodar road, the vehicle was turned turtle on road and, thereby, oxygen cylinder being transported in such vehicle were got swerved from the vehicle and hit with the victim, who was doing his road side business of selling clothes. In such incident, victim has received serious and grave injuries, which resulted into his death on the spot, whereas his minor daughter namely Aratiben who was sitting with him was also injured. Therefore, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 being legal heirs and dependent of the deceased, being widow, two minor children and parents have preferred such claim petition. 3. After allowing both the sides to adduce evidence, the tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,95,000/- to legal heirs of the deceased victim for death claim, whereas Rs. 5000/- was awarded to minor Arati for injuries received by her. However, insurance company has restricted the appeal against Motor Accident Claim Petition No.382 of 2003 by legal heirs of the deceased victim against fatal claim. 4. The sum and substance of the appeal is to the effect that the tribunal ought to have held that the vehicle was not insured on the date of the accident contending that owner of the vehicle i.e. insured being respondent No.7 herein has not paid the insurance premium since his cheque towards premium of the insurance was dishonoured and notice to that effect was given by the insurance company to the owner of the vehicle on 10.05.2002 i.e. much prior to the date of accident which was occurred on 23.03.2003. However, it is also submitted that alternatively the tribunal ought to have directed that the appellant - insurance company is entitled to recover the entire award against the owner of the vehicle, if at all insurance company has to pay the amount of award to the claimants being legal heirs of the deceased victim as third party to the insured and insurer. The appellant has also challenged the quantum of compensation contending that the tribunal has erred in considering Rs. 3000/- as monthly income of the deceased without any sufficient evidence on record and applying 15 as a suitable multiplier. 5. Therefore, we have to scrutinize the entire evidence, so as to consider that whether there is any apparent error on the part of the tribunal in passing such award against appellant. However, so far as incident and its result is concerned, it is not in dispute that vehicle under reference was involved in the accident and there was death of one human being namely Sureshbhai D. Chauhan. It is also undisputed fact that deceased has nothing to do with the cause of incident and, therefore, principal of res ipsa locutar would certainly apply to confirm that driver was responsible for the death of the victim and because of such negligent act, owner of the vehicle is liable and, thereby, if vehicle is insured by effective insurance policy then insurance company has to indemnify the award. Therefore, when relevant documentary evidence is produced before the tribunal to confirm the incident and its result, such evidence is not required to be reproduced when it is well described in the pleadings and impugned award. 6. However, so far as liability of insurance company is concerned, the relevant evidence is in the form of receipt regarding payment of premium for insurance of vehicle in question which is dated 01.05.2002 and produced at exhibit 41. Whereas notice regarding return of cheque dated 10.05.2002 is produced at exhibit 42 with acknowledgment slip of such notice, which is at exhibit 43. The certificate of policy is also placed on record at Mark 18/1 but it is not proved, so also xerox copy of the cheque dated 01.05.2002 at Mark 18/3 and bank's memo returning cheque at Mark 18/4. 7. The certificate of policy is also placed on record at Mark 18/1 but it is not proved, so also xerox copy of the cheque dated 01.05.2002 at Mark 18/3 and bank's memo returning cheque at Mark 18/4. 7. Whereas opponent No.2 has filed his written statement on 19.01.2006 disclosing in para 8 in such reply that vehicle was insured with appellant - opponent No.3 for the period between 01.05.2002 to 30.04.2003. However, he has not produced any evidence to prove such fact. It seems that insurance company has failed to file written statement. Though there is reference to written statement of insurance company in para 3 that opponent No.3 has filed separate but identical written statement in both petitions. Therefore, when the tribunal has wrongly recorded that opponent Nos. 1 and 2 are expired and opponent No.3 has filed written statement, it seems that the tribunal has not properly scrutinized the record in as much as opponent No.2 has filed written statement at exhibit 15, whereas I could not found written statement by opponent No.3 being appellant herein in original Record and Proceedings. 8. Whereas insurance company has filed an application under Section 117 at exhibit 25 but probably did not file any written statement, since it is not found in the Record and Proceedings of the trial Court, though it is observed in the judgment by the tribunal that opponent No.3 has filed separate but identical written statement in both the petitions. Therefore, practically there is no pleadings by the appellant before the tribunal regarding their evidence that they have came forward with the case that vehicle was not insured with them since cheque of premium was dishonoured. 9. To prove such fact, appellant has examined one Jagdishbhai as OW No.1. This witness has not disclosed and clarified his capacity and nexus with the issue and cause which is under consideration before the tribunal i.e. whether he is agent or employee of the insurance company is not certain. However, the bare reading of his deposition makes it clear that he has admitted that insurance company has received a cheque dated 01.05.2002 from the proprietor of Krishna Travels towards insurance premium of the vehicle in question for which their branch office has issued a receipt. However, the bare reading of his deposition makes it clear that he has admitted that insurance company has received a cheque dated 01.05.2002 from the proprietor of Krishna Travels towards insurance premium of the vehicle in question for which their branch office has issued a receipt. He has further disclosed that since such cheque was dishonoured by banker of the vehicle owner for non-availability of sufficient fund, the insurance company has issued a notice dated 10.05.2002 by RPAD, which is served upon insured. It is further stated that the receipt issued by the insurance company categorically confirms that it is valid subject to realization of cheque. He identified such document and produced it as the evidence and though such documents are illegible xerox copy, the tribunal has exhibited it even though there is an objection by the otherside to exhibit it. 10. I have perused such documents exhibit 41, 42 and 43 except it is related to issue under consideration practically all such documents are illegible and they are submitted by the appellant without specific pleadings to such effect and without producing proper legible copies of such documents on record. Whereas during cross examination, the witness has to admit that he is not working in the department of the appellant, which is issuing policies. He also admits that account department is also different from his duties, which has issued receipt. He also admits that receipt does not disclose vehicle number but confirms that policies are being issued based upon such receipt within 7 days whereas receipt was issued immediately on receipt of cheque. He has no option but to admit that a certificate of insurance shows to him is signed by one Mr. Ashok Shah, Development Officer of his office which is produced at exhibit 14 wherein vehicle number and period of policy is categorically disclosed. The perusal of such certificate of insurance at exhibit 44 unfortunately does not disclose the date of its issuance but disclosing the policy number, vehicle number and its details, sum ensured and premium recovered by insurance company. Therefore, when witness and appellant are aware about signatory with vehicle number they should examine such person who was otherwise aware about facts. Therefore, examining a third person would not serve the purpose of the insurance company to get exonerated from paying compensation to the third party victim of the road accident. Therefore, when witness and appellant are aware about signatory with vehicle number they should examine such person who was otherwise aware about facts. Therefore, examining a third person would not serve the purpose of the insurance company to get exonerated from paying compensation to the third party victim of the road accident. Appellant has even after such cross examination did not bother to prove their cogent and reliable evidence, that receipt under reference is for the same vehicle and there was no payment of premium for such vehicle. Thereby, such half heartily disclosed facts that too, by unknown witness and in absence of specific pleadings on record, so as to enable the applicant or the insurer to rebut the contention of the insurance company by adducing proper evidence, there is no option but to discard such evidence. There is one more reason to say so, because in certificate of insurance, which is now admitted by the witness of the appellant, discloses that premium recovered by the appellant is Rs. 6548/- without confirming that it is by cheque or cash whereas the cheque produced at Mark 18/1 is only for Rs. 6312/- so also returning memo is at Mark 18/4 whereas receipt at exhibit 41 is so illegible, which does not confirm the amount, whereas on the contrary receipt shows the two entries for same policy number but it does not confirm that it is for the same policy and for same vehicle whereas proper scrutiny of such receipt by magnify glass, on the contrary goes to show that amount of premium is paid in cash and, therefore, when amount of premium does not telly with the cheque and the certificate of insurance admitted by the witness of the appellant is showing different amount of cheque, probably in absence of proper pleadings, the insurance company is trying to take disadvantage of some mix facts. Similarly the documents at exhibit 42 is also not reliable, in as much as, though it is a notice for dishonoured cheque of premium, on one hand, it is also not properly legible and on other hand, it does not disclose that such letter is with reference to which vehicle and what is the cheque amount which is dishonoured. Therefore, only some piece of paper which is not properly legible cannot be relied upon. Therefore, only some piece of paper which is not properly legible cannot be relied upon. Nobody has restrained the appellant to produce proper and legible documents on record and to prove such crucial factual details by further but cogent and reliable evidence by producing all relevant documentary evidence, to prove such fact in absence of pleadings, it seems that insurance company has failed to prove their defence that cheque for the premium by the vehicle owner is dishonoured and thereafter the vehicle owner has not paid the premium. 11. As discussed herein above, probably the vehicle owner has paid the premium, the insurance company has hide some facts from the court. It cannot be ignored that the witness has also categorically admitted that the notice for dishonouring the cheque was also being issued by the same department and he has no personal knowledge regarding preparation of policy so also regarding issuance of receipt or notice. He also not knowing that who has issued notice. He confirms that he has no knowledge that in case of cancellation of policy intimation is to be given to the RTO and, therefore, such witness is chance witness. Therefore, irrespective of reasoning assigned by the tribunal, it is submitted by the insurance company that premium is not paid by the vehicle owner since cheque was dishonoured. However, the insurance company has not pleaded such defence and simply produced some illegible documents to confuse the tribunal. Therefore, there is no substance in the appeal. 12. However, perusal of impugned judgment makes it clear that the tribunal has dealt with all the issues in its own way and refereed relevant provisions of Motor Vehicles act so also cited decisions referred before it to arrive at conclusion. Therefore, when the tribunal has rightly held that insurance company cannot be exonerated from its liability I do not see any reason to interfere with it in such appeal. 13. Learned advocate for the appellant is relying upon the following decisions, (1) Deddappa and Others. vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Therefore, when the tribunal has rightly held that insurance company cannot be exonerated from its liability I do not see any reason to interfere with it in such appeal. 13. Learned advocate for the appellant is relying upon the following decisions, (1) Deddappa and Others. vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2008) 2 GLR 1774 (SC), wherein facts are altogether different, in as much as, in such reported case, cheque was issued on 15.10.1997 for the period between 17.10.1997 to 16.10.1998 but on receipt of cheque on 21.10.1997, the insurance company has not only cancelled the policy of insurance but communicated such fact to the owner of the vehicle and intimation on or about 16.11.1997 to RTO concerned. Thereafter accident has taken place on 06.02.1998 and, therefore, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that when intimation regarding cancellation of policy has been conveyed in November and when accident has taken place three months thereafter and if the vehicle owner has not bothered to pay the premium in between to confirm the validity of insurance policy, the insurance company cannot be held liable. Therefore, such judgment would not help the appellant to exonerate its liability. (2) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Yellamma & Another., (2008) ACJ 1906, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held that; if premium is not paid by the insurer, there was no previty of contract between the insurance company and the insured. However, the Honourable Apex Court has directed the insurance company to pay the award and recover the same from the owner - insured. But if we verify the factual details of such case, it becomes clear that there is some what different factual details and evidence before the Court in as much as when cheque for premium was dishonoured, and when development officer of the company has inadvertently issued the cover note and when the mistake was notice and when cheque was not encashed, the insurer was asked to pay the amount of premium which he had not paid. Therefore, it seems that there was an intimation to the insurer about dishonour of cheque and to pay the amount of premium which he fails. Therefore such judgment would not help the appellant in any manner whatsoever, because factual details are altogether different from us. Therefore, it seems that there was an intimation to the insurer about dishonour of cheque and to pay the amount of premium which he fails. Therefore such judgment would not help the appellant in any manner whatsoever, because factual details are altogether different from us. (3) National Insurance Company Limited vs. Subhadraben, (2016) ACJ 2701, wherein the co - ordinate bench of this Court has relied upon several other decisions and held that; when cheque dated 08.10.1993 was dishonoured and thereafter when intimation about dishonour of cheque was given to the honour with intimation regarding cancellation of insurance policy, and thereafter when accident has taken as late as on 22.08.1994 and when owner has not paid the premium on receiving intimation regarding cancellation of policy, insurance company cannot be held liable to indemnify the owner. Therefore, factual details are extremely against owner when he fails to pay premium for 8 months, whereas in our case, premium had been received by the insurance company in cash before the date of accident and, therefore, this judgment would not help the appellant. 14. Whereas learned advocate for the respondent is relying upon following decisions; (1) National Insurance Company Limited vs. Balkar Ram, (2013) 10 SCALE 430 , wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held that if cheque was dishonoured, but when insurance company had not given an intimation regarding dishonour of cheque before the date of accident, the defence of the insurance company that the policy of insurance was not valid, would not exonerate it from making the payment of compensation. In such reported case, cheque for premium was dated 17.04.2000 whereas accident took place on 19.04.2000 but intimation to the policy holder regarding dishonour of cheque was issued only on 26.04.2000. (2) National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Monghiben Kodarbhai Parmar, (2009) 1 GLR 765, wherein the co-ordinate bench of this Court has though held that insurance company was not liable because of cancellation of policy on the ground of dishonour of cheque, the insurance company needs to be directed to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and recover it from the owner. Therefore, there is no substance in the appeal, so far as liability issue is concerned. 15. Following citations are also relevant to refer and recollect at this juncture; (1) between National Insurance Co. Therefore, there is no substance in the appeal, so far as liability issue is concerned. 15. Following citations are also relevant to refer and recollect at this juncture; (1) between National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Abhaysing Pratapsing Waghela, (2008) 9 SCC 133 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has, even after referring the decision of Dedappa (supra) has confirmed and held that when cover note was issued prior to date of accident i.e. on the date of cheque, the date when cheque was issued to the insurer, though cheque issued towards payment of premium was dishonoured, in absence of cancellation of policy on dishonouring of cheque, the liability of insurance company will remain in force till policy was cancelled and thereby it was held that appellant insurance company cannot avoid its liability. (2) between United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Manubhai Dharasinhbhai Gajera, (2008) 10 SCC 404 wherein though dispute is with reference to mediclaim policy, the discussion and observation of the Honourable Supreme Court with reference to renewal of insurance policy is material, when it is observed and held that when policy contemplates terms for renewal, subject of course to payment of requisite premium, the same cannot be placed on a par with a case of first contract. Therefore, when insurance policy of the vehicle which is otherwise hypotheticated with the bank, the principal laid-down in such judgment would apply whether it is policy of vehicle or medi claim policy. (3) between New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rula, (2000) 3 SCC 195 wherein also the Honourable Supreme Court has held that subsequent cancellation of the insurance policy on the ground that cheque of premium was dishonoured, would not affect the rights of third party which had accrued on the issuance of policy on the date of which accident had took-place. (4) between United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Laxmamma, (2012) 5 SCC 234 wherein after distinguishing decision in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Seema Malhotra reported in, (2001) 3 SCC 151 so also the decision in case of Deddappa (supra) and relying upon the decision in case of Oriental Insurance Co. (4) between United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Laxmamma, (2012) 5 SCC 234 wherein after distinguishing decision in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Seema Malhotra reported in, (2001) 3 SCC 151 so also the decision in case of Deddappa (supra) and relying upon the decision in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Inderjit Kaur, (1998) 1 SCC 371 so also case of Rula (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court has again reconfirmed that if cancellation of policy has been done by the insurer after the accident, the insurer became liable to satisfy the award to compensation passed in favour of the claimants. (5) Whereas the extreme case admitted even by insurance company is reported in 2010 15 SCC 141 between Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Dharam Chand, (2010) 15 SCC 141 when though cheque was issued on 07.05.1998 at 4:00 p.m. and accident has occurred at 8:30 p.m. on 07.05.1998, the insurance company has fairly admitted before the Court that insurance commenced from the date and time of payment of premium for fixing the liability of the insurance company. (6) National Insurance Company vs. Bachubhai Chandubhai Vasava reported in, (2010) 1 GLR 49 wherein, the co-ordinate bench of this Court has in similar facts when cheque for premium was returned by the bank in absence of cancellation of policy, the insurance company was held liable. 16. Therefore, in present case, when there is no evidence on record to confirm that insurance company has at any point of time cancelled the insurance policy and intimated such cancellation to the insured as well as RTO it cannot be exonerated to pay compensation to the third party. However, considering the typical facts available on record, if at all there is any issue, practically it is between insurance company, the appellant, its banker and the bank upon which cheque was issued by the insurer and not between the insurer and insured. 17. Therefore, if so advised, the appellant may initiate appropriate proceedings against any of them. In that case, the competent court would decide that who is at fault and thereby who can be blamed and made responsible to compassionate the insurance company for its liability. 17. Therefore, if so advised, the appellant may initiate appropriate proceedings against any of them. In that case, the competent court would decide that who is at fault and thereby who can be blamed and made responsible to compassionate the insurance company for its liability. Since such issue can be decided in such separate litigation between concerned parties though it was argued before me about activities of the banks by the appellant, I have restrained myself discussion or deciding on any such issue which may be subject matter of any such litigation wherein all the parties are entitled to lead evidence to prove their case. 18. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the appellant has contended that there is no cogent and reliable evidence to prove the income of the deceased. The evidence of the claimant is at exhibit 23 she has in her deposition categorically stated that deceased was selling clothes and earning Rs. 3000/- per month. During her cross examination except confirming that there is no documentary evidence to prove such income, there is nothing in evidence so as to rebut the contention of the claimants regarding income of the deceased. Therefore, considering the age and earning activity of the claimants so also considering the fact that even for non earning person, a notional income of Rs. 15000/- per annum is to be considered, I do not see any exgratio on the part of the claimant or the tribunal when tribunal has reduced the income from Rs. 3000/- to Rs. 2000/- per month while awarding compensation. Thereby, the tribunal has taken Rs. 2000/- as monthly income and awarded Rs. 360000/- towards loss of dependency considering Rs. 3000/- as prospective income and deducted Rs. 1000/- towards personal expenses. 19. However, if at all there is any scope of deduction of any minimum amount under such head since the tribunal has awarded in all Rs. 35,000/- towards conventional heads considering the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Shetti reported in, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , when aggregate amount of compensation to be awarded on all such heads, to claimants which includes widow and minor children, would be Rs. 70,000/-; in fact there may be addition of Rs. 35,000/- on such heads. 70,000/-; in fact there may be addition of Rs. 35,000/- on such heads. Therefore, even if we may deducts some amount from loss of dependency, then some amount is to be awarded under different conventional heads. Therefore, I do not see any substance in the submission that claim is on higher side. 20. Thereby, there is no substance in the appeal so as to interfere with. Therefore, appeal stands dismissed with no order as to coasts. Interim relief, if any granted earlier shall stand vacated. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned tribunal forthwith.