JUDGMENT :

NATARAJ RANGASWAMY, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation and also challenging the fixation of liability of payment of compensation on the insured.

2. The claimants contended that on 05.10.2007 when the deceased was riding his bicycle on Bijapur-Hyderabad highway, a truck owned by respondent No.1 driven in rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased. As a result of the impact the deceased died at the spot. It was claimed that deceased was employed as a tile layer at Pragathi Associates at Solapur and was paid monthly salary of Rs.6,500/-. The claimants claimed that they were dependents on the deceased and due to untimely death of the deceased, the claimant No.1 had lost her companionship at a very young age, while petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 had lost the parental love and affection. The claimants therefore sought for payment of compensation of Rs.24,40,000/-.

3. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- and having regard to his age, employed the multiplier of 16 and granted loss of future th income of Rs.7,20,000/- after deducting 1/4 towards expenses of the deceased. The Tribunal noticed that the insurance policy was not subsisting as on the date of the accident, and therefore, the Tribunal fixed the liability of payment of compensation on the insured.

4. It is not in dispute that the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry, which was owned by the respondent No.1. It is also not in dispute that the deceased died due to accident. It is also not in dispute that deceased was employed as a tile layer and that the claimants were dependents on the deceased. It is relevant to note that the Tribunal had taken the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- though the salary certificate issued indicated the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,500/-. Be that as it may, even if a sum of Rs.5,000 is taken as monthly income of the deceased and of the income is deducted towards his personal expenses, then the monthly dependency of the claimants would be Rs.7,20,000/-(3,750x12x16). The Tribunal has not awarded compensation for future prospects at 40% as per judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : AIR 2017 SC 5157. If we take that into account a sum of Rs.2,88,000/- would be the amount payable towards loss of future prospects. In addition, the claimants are entitled to loss of love and affection, loss of estate, funeral and other expenses at a sum of Rs.75,000/-. Thus, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.10,83,000/- as against a sum of Rs.7,50,000-00 (wrongly mentioned as Rs.7,30,000/-) awarded by the Tribunal.

5. Now coming to the question of liability, it is not in dispute that respondent No.1 issued a cheque dated 04.01.2007 to avail the insurance policy for the term 05.01.2007 to 04.01.2008. The respondent No.2 contended that cheque so issued was dishonoured on 06.01.2007. Subsequent thereto, the accident occurred on 15.10.2007 and the respondent No.1 availed a new policy on 26.10.2007 for a term of one year. The respondent No.2 contended that after dishonour of the cheque, a notice dated 09.01.2007 was addressed to the respondent No.5 intimating him the dishonour of the cheque and it was mentioned therein:

"Please note that the above mentioned policy stands cancelled since inception and we are not on risk in respect of the above policy and certificate of insurance."

6. This was followed by a notice addressed by respondent No.2 to the Regional Transport Officer on 09.01.2007 intimating the Authority regarding the cancellation the policy. This was followed by another notice dated nil intimating that the endorsement was cancelled due to dishonour of the cheque towards insurance premium. The notice issued to respondent No.1 dated 06.01.2007 was served in terms of Ex.D6. Likewise the intimation addressed to Regional Tra