JUDGMENT : 1. These two Civil Misc. Appeals have been filed against the judgment and award dated 2.6.2011 passed by Motor Accident claims Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) Kota in Claim Case No. 673/2007, whereby an award of Rs. 13,22,000/-, has been passed in favour of the claimants and against the Oriental Insurance Co. (for short, ‘the Insurance Co.’) as also the non claimants no. 1 and 2 i.e. the Driver and Owner of the offending vehicle. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4062/2011 has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Co. challenging the impugned judgment and award, whereas S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 7616/2011 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. 2. Facts of the case are that on 10.9.2007 at about 11.00 AM, deceased Dr. Jagdish Verma was going from Ajmer towards Jodhpur in RSRTC Bus No. RJ-19-1P-0510 and when the bus reached in front of Old Octroi Ajmer Road Beawar, suddenly an undulated truck bearing no. RJ 14-2G-4581 came from the direction of Beawar and vigorously collided in the driver side of the bus, as a result of which accident took place and the passengers sitting in the bus, sustained injuries. In the said accident, Dr. Jagdish Verma also sustained grievous injuries and during treatment, he died at about 12.15 O’ clock in the noon. 3. The claimants filed the claim petition. The non claimants filed the written statement. Issues were framed and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 2.6.2011, awarded a sum of Rs. 13,22,000/- as compensation, as indicated above. Hence, these two appeals. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Co. submits that at the time of accident, the Insurance Policy of the offending truck was not effective for the reason that the cheque of premium amount was dishonoured. The Insurance Co. communicated this fact vide letter dated 10.5.2007 (Ex.-10) to Shree Finance Company, which issued the cover note, hence Insurance Co. was not liable to indemnify the award. Learned counsel for the Insurance Co. further submits that the learned Tribunal has not rightly dealt with the issue of negligence. Since it was a head on collision between the two vehicles, there was contributory negligence of the driver of the RSRTC bus. The finding given by the Tribunal in this regard is totally wrong. Learned counsel for the Insurance Co. further submits that the learned Tribunal has not rightly dealt with the issue of negligence. Since it was a head on collision between the two vehicles, there was contributory negligence of the driver of the RSRTC bus. The finding given by the Tribunal in this regard is totally wrong. He further submits that the deceased was unmarried, hence ½ amount should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, but the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd amount. 5. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Seema Malhotra and others reported in 2001 (Vol. II) TAC page 1 (ii) Deddappa and others Versus Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2008 (1) TAC 417 (SC) (iii) Manasvi Jain Versus Delhi Transport Corporation reported in 2014 (2) T.A.C 741 (SC) (iv) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Inderjit Kaur and others reported in AIR 1998 SC 588 (v) Bijoy Kumar Dugar Versus Bidyadhar Dutta and others reported in 2006 (1) TAC 969 (SC) 6. On the other hand, Mr. L.L. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that District Consumer Forum, Jaipur Ist, Jaipur vide its order dated 17.11.2009 has given compensation for the same cover note to the owner of the offending truck due to its damage. He further submits that no notice for dishonournemnt of cheque was given by the Insurance Co. He further submits that from the FIR, site plan, charge sheet and the statement of witness AW-2 Sandeep Arora, it was established that there was no fault of the driver of RSRTC Bus. However, even if if is presumed that there was any fault of the driver of RSRTC Bus, it could be said to be a case of composite negligence and not of contributory negligence. He further submits that it is the prerogative of the claimants as to whom they want to seek claim. He admits the fact that since the deceased was an unmarried boy, ½ amount should have been deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd amount. He further submits that multiplier of 11 has been applied by the Tribunal, whereas in view of the fact that the deceased was 26 years of age, multiplier of 17 should have been applied. 7. He further submits that multiplier of 11 has been applied by the Tribunal, whereas in view of the fact that the deceased was 26 years of age, multiplier of 17 should have been applied. 7. He has cited the following judgments in support of his cases: (i) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Inderjit Kaur and others reported in AIR 1998 SC 588 (ii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Rula and others reported in AIR 2000 SC 1082 (iii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Yellamma and another reported in AIR 2008 SC 3145 (iv) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Balkar Ram and others reported in 2014 (2) TAC 11 (SC) (v) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Laxamma and others reported in 2012 (3) TAC 8 (SC) (vi) Smt. Manju Lata and others Versus Laxmi Narain Sharma & ors. (judgment dated 2.8.2016 passed by the Principal Seat of this Court in SBCMA No. 89/2000) 8. Heard. Considered. 9. The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Seema Malhotra (supra), relied upon by the counsel for the appellant does not apply to the facts of the instant case because in the instant case, the offending vehicle was taken on finance from Shri Ram Finance Co. and the Shri Ram Finance Co. issued the cover note being an agent of the Insurance Co., whereas in the case of Seema Malhotra (supra), vehicle owner directly entered into contract with Insurance Co. and there was no finance company in between the two. 10. In the case of Deddappa and ors. (supra), information with regard to cancellation of policy was given to RTO, but in the instant case, no information in regard to cancellation of the policy was given either to registered owner or the concerned transport officer. 11. On the other hand, in the case of Inderjit Kaur and others (supra), relied upon by the counsel for the claimants, it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that by reason of the provision of Section 147 (5) and 149 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant became liable to indemnify third parties in respect of the liability which that policy covered and to satisfy award of compensation in respect thereof notwithstanding its entitlement to avoid or cancel the policy for the reason that the cheque issued in payment of the premium thereon had not been honoured. 12. 12. In the case of Rula and others (supra), relied upon by the counsel for the claimants, it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the subsequent cancellation of the insurance Policy on the ground that the cheque through which premium was paid was dishnoured, would not affect the rights of the third party which had accrued on the issuance of the Policy on the date on which the accident took place. If, on the date of accident, there was a policy of Insurance in respect of the vehicle in question, the third party would have a claim against the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle would have to be indemnified in respect of the claim of that party. Subsequent cancellation of Insurance Policy on the ground of non-payment of premium would not affect the rights already accrued in favour of the third party. 13. So far as the cover note is concerned, District Consumer Forum, Jaipur Ist, Jaipur vide its order dated 17.11.2009 has given compensation. The said order dated 17.11.2009 has not been challenged by the Insurance Co. and it attained finality. Since the said order had not been challenged by the Insurance Co. in earlier proceedings, they cannot raise the ground of validity and legality of the cover note in the subsequent proceedings. It is also an admitted fact that no notice with regard to dishonournment of cheque was given by the Insurance Co. to the drawer of the cheque. 14. From the FIR, site plan and statement of AW-2 Sandeep Arora, it was well established that there was no negligence of the driver of RSRTC Bus. 15. Indisputably the deceased was a Doctor and he was stated to be receiving an amount of Rs. 18,500/- per month from Ambika Hospital, Jodhpur, but this was for one month only and in order to prove the same neither pay slip nor any register was produced. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal rightly determined monthly income of the deceased @ Rs. 15,000/-. As the deceased was aged about 26 years at the time of accident, therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , an addition of 40% of the monthly income is to be added towards future prospects of the deceased, which comes to Rs.6000/-. Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 , an addition of 40% of the monthly income is to be added towards future prospects of the deceased, which comes to Rs.6000/-. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.21,000/- (15000+6000). Keeping in view the fact that deceased was unmarried, one half of the said income should have been deducted towards his personal expenses instead of 1/3rd amount. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs. 10,500/-. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, as per the age bracket provided in Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, multiplier of 17 would be applied to work out the dependency of the claimants. In addition to above, the claimants would be further entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 70,000/- towards conventional heads. Thus, after calculating, the amount receivable by the claimants comes to Rs. 22,12,000/-(10,500X12X17+70,000), whereas the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 13,22,000/-. Thus, the claimants would further be entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 8,90,000/- from the Insurance Co. as compensation. 16. The impugned judgment and award stands modified accordingly. 17. Both the appeals stand disposed of, as indicated here-in-above.