Ramakrishnan, J.

1. The claimant in OP(MV) No.270/2007 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, is the appellant herein. The appellant filed the application for compensation for the injuries and consequential disabilities sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of a vehicle driven by the second respondent (who has been deleted from the party array as per order in IA No.2959/12), owned by the first respondent and insured with the third respondent. The above said case was tried along with a number of other claim petitions arising out of the same accident, jointly and after considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the second respondent and awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,04,560/- under various heads as follows :

The third respondent insurance company contended that the policy was issued on 6.4.2006 and the premium was paid by cheque by the first respondent from the account maintained by the first respondent with his bank namely, M/s.Vijaya Bank dated 5.4.2006 and the same was dishonoured by Ext.B1 intimation sent by HDFC Bank and this was intimated to the owner, namely the first respondent, by the insurer as per their registered notice dated 27.4.2006, repudiating the policy, the sending of which notice was evidenced by Ext.B4 postal receipt dated 28.4.2006 and since the accident occurred on 6.12.2006, after the repudiation of the policy, relying on the decision reported in Deddappa v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited (AIR 2008 SC 767), the tribunal exonerated the insurance company from liability, making the owner of the vehicle alone liable for payment of the amount. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded and also the finding, exonerating the insurance company from liability, the appellant has come to this court with the above appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the first respondent and the third respondent insurance company. The appellant filed IA No.1941/13 for reception of additional evidence and the same was allowed, making the document produced along with the application as Ext.A35, on the side of the appellant.

3. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd for his personal expenses from the monthly income for the purpose of assessing compensation under the head 'loss of earning and loss of earning capacity', which is unsustainable in law, Further, the monthly income fixed by the Tribunal is also low. According to the counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the insurance company from liability as there is no evidence to show that the insurer had informed all the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act regarding the repudiation of the policy, which they are bound to do. In this case, the Regional Transport Officer, who issued the registration certificate was not informed about the repudiation of the policy and the document produced by him before this Court, i.e. Ext.A35 will go to show that a temporary permit was issued on the previous day of the accident, which, in turn, would go to show that if really the insurer had informed about the cancellation of the policy to the registering authority, then, they would not have issued the temporary permit. Further, once the policy is issued, the liability of the third party is covered. They cannot repudiate that liability by merely sending a letter to the insured alone, especially, when it affects the public, who are travelling in a public service vehicle. He sought to distinguish the decision reported in Deddappa's case (supra) on the ground that in that case, the insurance company had informed the Regional Transport Officer also and the Supreme Court has held that since the insurance company had informed the repudiation of the policy long prior to the acc