JUDGMENT : B.S. BHANUMATHI, J. 1. This appeal is filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and the decree, dated 01.02.2005, in O.P.No.88 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). The parties are arrayed as before the Tribunal. The 1 st to 5 th respondents herein are the claimants. The respondent No.6 herein is the 1 st respondent and the 7 th and 8 th respondents herein are the 3 rd and 4 th respondents before the Tribunal. The appellant is the 2 nd respondent before the Tribunal. 2. The case of the claimants, is briefly, as follows: The claimants are the legal representatives of V.S. Venkatramana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’). They sought compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on the ground that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident on 29.08.1999 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep bearing No.AP 03 D 5996, insured with the 4 th respondent and owned by the 3 rd respondent, as the jeep dashed against a maxi cab van bearing registration No.KA 01 3265, owned by the 1 st respondent and insured with the 2 nd respondent which was driven by its driver also in a rash and negligent manner. The owners of both vehicles did not contest the case. Both the insurance companies contested the case by filing separate written statements. The 2 nd respondent pleaded that policy issued in favour of the 1 st respondent was cancelled as the cheque issued by him relating to the premium amount was dishonoured, and therefore, it is not liable to pay compensation. That apart, both the insurance companies denied their liability to pay the compensation etc. 3. On behalf of the claimants, the 1 st claimant was examined as PW1, the 4 th claimant was examined as PW2 and Sk. Mahaboob Basha was examined as PW3. Further Exs.A1 to A31 were marked. On behalf of the 2 nd respondent, RW1, Y.C. Varakumar, was examined and exhibits B1 to B8 were marked, out of which exhibit B1 is the same as exhibit B5 and exhibit B4 is the same as exhibit B6. The 4 th respondent did not lead oral evidence but filed exhibit B8. Further Exs.A1 to A31 were marked. On behalf of the 2 nd respondent, RW1, Y.C. Varakumar, was examined and exhibits B1 to B8 were marked, out of which exhibit B1 is the same as exhibit B5 and exhibit B4 is the same as exhibit B6. The 4 th respondent did not lead oral evidence but filed exhibit B8. For claimants: Ex.A1 : Certified copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.143 of 1999 of Nandagudi P.S. Ex.A2 : (English) translated copy of Ex.A1 Ex.A3 : Certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.99 of 1999 of J.F.C.M., Hoskote Ex.A4 : English translated copy of Ex.A3 Ex.A5 : Certified copy of post mortem report Ex.A6 : Certified copy of M.V.I’s report Ex.A7 : Date of birth certificate, standing in the name of the deceased Ex.A8 : Attested copy of S.S.C. marks list of PW1 Ex.A9 : Date of birth certificate issued by Madanapalle Municipality Ex.A10 : Date of birth certificate of PW3 issued by Madanapalle Municipality Ex.A11 : Original licence bearing No.54 for the year 1988-89 issued by Assistant Excise Superintendent, Chittoor Ex.A12 : Renewed licence for the year 1996-97 Ex.A13 : original licence bearing No.113 for the year 1997-98 Ex.A14 : original assessment order, dt. 29.4.1994 together with the demand notice Ex.A15 : Balance sheet for the year ended by 31-3-98 Ex.A16 : Certificate issued by the Manager, Vysya Bank, Punganur Ex.A17 : Notice issued by the Income Tax Officer, Chittoor Ex.A18 : Income tax payment in the year 1993 Ex.A19 : Income tax returns for the assessment year 1998-1999 Ex.A20 : Income tax returns for the assessment year 1999-2000 Ex.A21 : Bank passbook issued by Corporation Bank, Somala Ex.A22 : Assessment order relating to Radhakrishna Wine shop Ex.A23 : Order issued by the C.T.O., Madanapalle, dt. 24.06.1998 standing in the name of Venkatramana Ex.A24 : Original assessing authority of C.T.O., Madanapalle circle, issued demand notice to the son of PW2. Ex.A25 : True copy of the income tax return submitted to the Income tax Department, Chittoor for the year 1999-2000 Ex.A26 : True copy of the statement of Income and profit. 24.06.1998 standing in the name of Venkatramana Ex.A24 : Original assessing authority of C.T.O., Madanapalle circle, issued demand notice to the son of PW2. Ex.A25 : True copy of the income tax return submitted to the Income tax Department, Chittoor for the year 1999-2000 Ex.A26 : True copy of the statement of Income and profit. Ex.A27 : Certificate of registration Ex.A28 : Copy of statement of Income Tax for the year ended with 31.03.1999 Ex.A29 : original copy of the income tax returns Ex.A30 : True copy of the pan card Ex.A31 : Xerox copy of the ledger extract S.B. A/c No.3419 For respondents: Ex.B1 : Cancellation copy of policy. Ex.B2 : Copy of cheque. Ex.B3 : Copy of Bank intimation. Ex.B4 : Copy of cancellation letter addressed to the R1 & R.T.O. Ex.B5 : Copy of cancellation policy. Ex.B6 : Copy of cancellation letter addressed to R1 & R.T.O. Ex.B7 : Copy of letter issued by the bank authorities. Ex.B8 : Copy of insurance policy. 4. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal declined the contention of the 2 nd respondent that it had no liability to pay the compensation in view of the cancellation of the policy and bouncing of the cheque and accordingly, awarded a compensation of Rs.5,42,000/-, subject to deduction of compensation amount, if any, awarded under ‘no fault liability’, along with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition i.e., 19-07-2000 till the date of realization payable by the 1 st and 2 nd respondents with joint and several liability, whereas the claim petition against the 3 rd and 4 th respondents was dismissed without costs. 5. Aggrieved by the award and the decree, the 2 nd respondent filed the appeal mainly on the ground of disowning the liability, besides the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest. 6. There is no representation for the 4 th and 5 th respondents (claimants) who appeared through counsel. The other respondents are shown as not necessary parties. 7. Aggrieved by the award and the decree, the 2 nd respondent filed the appeal mainly on the ground of disowning the liability, besides the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest. 6. There is no representation for the 4 th and 5 th respondents (claimants) who appeared through counsel. The other respondents are shown as not necessary parties. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant / 2 nd respondent submitted that the cheque issued by the 1 st respondent towards premium to issue the policy of insurance was dishonoured and thereby the policy was cancelled and duly intimated to the 1 st respondent and that the company had taken steps to prove these facts by filing the postal receipts of the correspondence, but acknowledgment could not be filed as it was not received. He further submitted that the letter addressed to the 1 st respondent is at the same address as given in the policy and therefore the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim as against the 2 nd respondent. Further, he submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded is also high. 8. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the Tribunal rightly appreciated the contention and fastened liability against the insurance company also, as acknowledgment had not been filed. He further placed reliance on the decision of the full bench of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Inderjit Kaur and others , 1997 (10) Supreme 289 , wherein it was held that: “8. We have, therefore, this position. Despite the bar created by Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, the appellant, an authorized insurer, issued a policy of insurance to cover the bus without receiving the premium therefor. By reason of the provisions 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 awards of compensation in respect thereof notwithstanding its entitlement (upon which we do not express any opinion) to avoid or cancel the policy for the reason that the cheque issued in payment of the premium thereon had not been honoured. 9. The policy of insurance that the appellant issued was a representation upon which the authorities and third parties were entitled to act. 9. The policy of insurance that the appellant issued was a representation upon which the authorities and third parties were entitled to act. The appellant was not absolved of its obligations to third parties under the policy because it did not receive the premium. Its remedies in this behalf lay against the insured. 10. We may note in this connection the following passage in the case of Montreal Street Railway Company vs. Normandin, AIR 1917 Privy Council 142. ''When the provisions of a statute relate to the performance of a public duty and the case is such that to hold null and void acts done in neglect of this duty would work serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons who have no control over those entrusted with the duty and at the same time would not promote the main object of the Legislature, it has been the practice to hold such provisions to be directory only, the neglect of them, though punishable, not affecting the validity of the acts done.” 11. It must also be noted that it was the appellant itself who was responsible for its predicament. It had issued the policy of insurance upon receipt only of a cheque towards the premium in contravention of the provisions of Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act. The public interest that a policy of insurance serves must, clearly, prevail over the interest of the appellant.” 9. He further placed reliance on the decision of this High Court in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Boya Siva Kumar and another , 2006 (4) ALT 650 at paragraph No.6: “6. In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court, referred to above, it is beyond any pale of controversy that, in case, the cheque, issued for payment of premium for a policy, is dishonoured, the insurer cannot be held liable. However, the question, as to whether the cheque was dishonoured at all, is a matter of fact, which must be proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. The issuance of a cheque and dishonour thereof, are the matters between the insurer and the insured. The victim of an accident would hardly have any role in this regard. Prima facie, Ex.B1 covers the liability, arising out of the accident. The issuance of a cheque and dishonour thereof, are the matters between the insurer and the insured. The victim of an accident would hardly have any role in this regard. Prima facie, Ex.B1 covers the liability, arising out of the accident. In case, the appellant wanted to avoid its liability, on the ground that the cheque issued for payment of premium was dishonoured, it was under obligation to examine the person, who issued the cheque, or to make an attempt to procure him before the Court, at least as witness, notwithstanding the fact that the 2 nd respondent remained ex parte. Mere filing of letters, Exs.B2 and B3, does not constitute the proof of the factum of dishonour of cheque. Further, the appellant did not place any communication, emanating from the bankers of the 2 nd respondent, or any other agency, throwing light upon the dishonour of the cheque; issued by the 2 nd respondent. In the absence of such correspondence, it is difficult to hold that the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. At the most, it can recover the sum from the 2 nd respondent, in the same proceedings, by filing an execution petition.” 10. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, this High Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Oburi (Oguri) Umamaheswara rao and others , 2011 (4) ALD 254 , after following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Inderjit Kaur & Others (supra), held at paragraph No.10 that the Insurance company is not liable. “10. If the ratio laid down in the above judgments is applied to the facts of the present case, the appellant insurance company could be able to prove that it had sent a letter to the insured conveying the information about the dishonour of cheque as well as cancellation of cover note and policy. The said letter was returned with endorsement that ‘no such addressee”. The said letter was sent by the insurance company on 27.02.1996 and the accident in the present case occurred on 01.12.1996 i.e., ten months after the cancellation of the policy by the insurance company and after conveying the said information to the insured by means of a letter. As has already been noticed, the actual receipt of the notice or information sent by the insurance company by the insured is not a requirement under law. As has already been noticed, the actual receipt of the notice or information sent by the insurance company by the insured is not a requirement under law. It is enough if the information is sent by the insurance company to the address furnished by the insured in the cover note or the policy. In the present case, the appellant insurance company substantially complied with the above requirement. Therefore, under law, it is deemed that there is valid service of the letter on the insured. Thus, it is no longer open to the insured to contend that since he did not actually receive the letter sent by the insurance company, the insurance company is still liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The learned Tribunal below in my considered view was under misconception of fact situation as well as the legal position relating to the question involved. The Tribunal’s decision that the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle in the facts and circumstances of the present case is wholly erroneous and the said finding is liable to be set aside in this appeal.” 11. Distinguishing the application of this decision to the present case, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that in this case, the insurance company filed returned letter with the endorsement ‘no such addressee’. But, no such evidence is available in the present case. In reply, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when a letter through registered post is sent to the address as given by the insured, it is deemed to be served at that address and that the evidence placed is sufficient to establish the same. 12. The above decisions make it clear that when a cheque issued towards payment of premium for insurance policy gets dishonoured, the insurance company cannot be held liable, but, in each case, necessary proof must be placed by the company. In the present case, the evidence placed is the cheque issued by the 1 st respondent (exhibit B2), its dishonour intimated to the company (exhibit B3), cancellation of policy (exhibit B1=B5), its intimation to the 1 st respondent and R.T.O (exhibit B4=B6). 13. At this juncture, it is appropriate to mention relevant observations of the Tribunal. In the present case, the evidence placed is the cheque issued by the 1 st respondent (exhibit B2), its dishonour intimated to the company (exhibit B3), cancellation of policy (exhibit B1=B5), its intimation to the 1 st respondent and R.T.O (exhibit B4=B6). 13. At this juncture, it is appropriate to mention relevant observations of the Tribunal. It was observed by the Tribunal that though it is the contention of the insurance company that premium amount was paid by way of cheque No.659641, there was no evidence of issuing such cheque by the 1 st respondent and the burden is on the company to prove the same and further that the letter of cancellation of the policy allegedly intimated to the 1 st respondent and R.T.O. as per exhibit B4 does not refer to the cheque number at all. That apart, it was observed that a copy of the receipt of such correspondence being made was not proved through filing acknowledgments and it is only the copy of the postal receipt with the name of the 1 st respondent alone was annexed to exhibit B6 whereas such proof is not available with regard to the R.T.O. In these circumstances, the issue of cheque for payment of premiums by the 1 st respondent was not proved and similarly intimation of the cancellation of policy to the 1 st respondent or to the R.T.O., Bangalore, was not proved. 14. A perusal of the documents above referred clearly support the observations of the Tribunal. As there is no inconsistent evidence on record, no further observations of this Court are required to hold that the insurance company failed to establish the necessary evidence to discharge its burden so as to disown its liability due to dishonour of the cheque. As such, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard does not require any interference. 15. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the deceased was aged 33 years, hale and healthy and earning not less than Rs.12,500/- per month while doing business in cement and running wine shop. The claimants also marked various licences regarding the business of wine issued from time to time right from the year 1987 to 1998 as exhibits A11 to A13 before the Tribunal. The claimants also marked various licences regarding the business of wine issued from time to time right from the year 1987 to 1998 as exhibits A11 to A13 before the Tribunal. Therefore, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the nature of the business undertaken by the deceased, it can be held that the deceased was earning Rs.48,000/- per year. After deducting 1/3 rd of the above amount towards his personal expenses, his annual contribution to the family can be arrived at Rs.32,000/-. Thereafter, by applying the relevant multiplier of ‘16’ the value was calculated at Rs.5,12,000/-. In addition to that, Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the 1 st petitioner. Thus, in all, a total compensation of Rs.5,42,000/- was awarded. Under these circumstances, such amount of compensation in no way be treated as high on any count. Therefore, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not require any interference in this appeal. Since there is no merit, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.