JUDGMENT : – Aggrieved by the award passed in Claim Case No. 18/2003 by Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior on 24-8-2006, appellant-claimant has preferred this appeal. 2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that in the evening of 21-4-2003, appellant-claimant was from A.G. Office to Madhoganj via. Chetakpuri Chauraha by his motorcycle bearing registration No. MP07/H-9453. As soon as appellant moved ahead from Shriram Colony, respondent No. 1-driver of offending vehicle i.e. Bus came driving the said bus rashly and negligently and dashed the motorcycle of claimant due to which appellant fell down and the tyre of bus passed on his left leg and the said leg was crushed and fractured. Claimant received injuries on all over the body. Claimant was brought to J.A. Hospital from the spot. On the information of C.M.O. J. A. Hospital, report was lodged at Police Station Jhansi Road. After conducting MLC of claimant, x-ray was advised. In the x-ray report, tibia and fibula bone of left leg of claimant was found fractured due to which appellant-claimant got admitted in the J.A. Hospital. Since appellant-claimant was not getting proper treatment at J.A. Hospital, he was admitted in Janak Hospital where he remained admitted for four days but his leg could not be cured and he suffered permanent disability. At the time of accident, appellant-claimant was 33 years of age and was working in A.G. Office. Appellant was earning salary of Rs. 7000/- per month. Due to the said accident, during treatment appellant could not attend the office for four months due to which he suffered severe loss. Respondent No. 1 and 2-driver and owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Insurance Company filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition mentioning that since the respondent No. 2-owner of the offending vehicle paid premium of the policy by cheque, which was dishonoured and therefore, the vehicle in question i.e. Bus was not insured with Insurance Company at the time of accident. It is also mentioned by respondent No. 3 that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding any valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. In such a situation, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 3. It is also mentioned by respondent No. 3 that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding any valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. In such a situation, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 3. Learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence led by rival parties, partly allowed the application of claimant and has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- fastening liability on respondents No. 1 and 2-driver and owner of the vehicle to pay compensation exonerating Insurance Company. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Tribunal has erred in fastening liability to pay compensation on respondents No. 1 and 2- driver and owner of the offending vehicle. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court passed in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mahesh Prasad Rawat and others, 2006(5) M.P.H.T. 165 (DB) Para 11, 12 and 13, decision of Division Bench of this Court passed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pawan Kumar and others, 2000(1) M.P.H.T. 557 and decision of Division Bench of this Court passed in Anuradha Kaushik and ors. vs. Varun Ground Water Development Corporation and ors., I (2007) ACC 305 (DB). It is also submitted that the appellant remained admitted in two hospitals on different dates for about four months and spent huge money for medical treatment and despite this, learned tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation which deserves to be enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company relying upon the decision of Single Bench of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur rendered in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kulsum Bano and others, 2017 ACJ 2582 submits that the fact of cancellation of policy was informed to the owner of offending vehicle by registered A.D. Post. In such a situation, learned Tribunal has not committed any error in exonerating the Insurance Company of liability to pay compensation. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has also relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Laxmamma and others, (2012) 5 SCC 234 , relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced below : – “26. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has also relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Laxmamma and others, (2012) 5 SCC 234 , relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced below : – “26. In our view, the legal position is this: where the policy of insurance is issued by an authorized insurer on receipt of cheque towards payment of premium and such cheque is returned dishonoured, the liability of authorized insurer to indemnify third parties in respect of the liability which that policy covered subsists and it has to satisfy award of compensation by reason of the provisions of section 147(5) and 149(1) of the M. V. Act unless the policy of Insurance is cancelled by the authorized insurer and intimation of such cancellation has reached the insured before the accident. In other words, where the policy of Insurance is issued by an authorized insurer to cover a vehicle on receipt of the cheque paid towards premium and the cheque gets dishonoured and before the accident of the vehicle occurs, such insurance company cancels the policy of insurance and sends intimation thereof to the owner, the insurance company’s liability to indemnify the third parties which that policy covered ceases and the insurance company is not liable to satisfy awards of compensation in respect thereof.” 6. Upon perusing the record especially the affidavit filed by one Arun Kumar Parashar who is working as Assistant at Board Office No. 2 of New India Insurance Company has stated in the said affidavit that the cheque issued by Smt. Aruna Singh owner of the offending vehicle in lieu of premium of insurance policy got dishonoured due to insufficient balance in the bank account of Smt. Aruna Singh. The Insurance Company informed the fact of cancellation of policy to the owner of offending vehicle by registered A.D. Post. 7. It is true that acknowledgment receipt has not been filed by the claimant but in ordinary course of nature, when a notice has been sent by registered post with acknowledgment to a correct address, service of notice has to be presumed. Besides this, owner of the offending vehicle has not appeared before the Tribunal to contest the aforesaid fact. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court holds that learned Tribunal has not committed any mistake in exonerating the Insurance Company of liability to pay compensation. Besides this, owner of the offending vehicle has not appeared before the Tribunal to contest the aforesaid fact. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court holds that learned Tribunal has not committed any mistake in exonerating the Insurance Company of liability to pay compensation. 9. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, having gone through the evidence adduced by the appellant/claimant and taking into consideration the overall findings of the Claims Tribunal which appear to be just and proper, however considering the nature of the case, the compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced by Rs. 1,00,000/- in lump sum (including already awarded amount by the Claims Tribunal i.e. Rs. 25,000/-). The enhanced amount of award shall not carry any interest however, if respondents-owner and driver of the vehicle fail to make the payment of compensation jointly and severely within a period of one month from today, then the enhanced amount of award shall carry penal interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Rest of the conditions as imposed by Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 10. The Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the interim compensation of Rs. 25000/- paid by the Company from the owner of the vehicle. 11. In view of the above, the instant appeal is allowed in part, accordingly. In the facts of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.