JUDGMENT :

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.

1. All the appeals are being decided by this common judgment, as they arise out of the common judgment and award dated 21/12/2002.

2. The present appeals have been preferred against the judgment and award dated 21/12/2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali in Motor Accident Claims Case Nos. 41/2001(96/94), 34/2001 (69/94), 35/2001 (70/74), 43/2001 (98/94), 41/2001(96/94), 46/2001 (101/94), 47/2001 (102/94) respectively.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 17/04/1994, Suman, Mangi, Chatar Daan, Jooni, Rani, Kunnai, Mahendra and other persons had gone from Dhundhada to Godawas Bavji Ka Than in the Jeep bearing registration No. 16 C 0226. While they were returning, one Hakim Khan sat in the Jeep from Godawas. The said jeep was being driven by Hakim Khan S/o. Ramjaan Khan in its correct direction. When they reached at the circle of Village Giradhara, Mangilal driver of the bus bearing No. RJ19 P0681 came from opposite direction i.e. Roopawas by driving the bus rashly and negligently and hit the Jeep No. RJ 16 C 0226 from front side. Due to which, Suman, Mangi, Kunnai, Mahendra, Chhotu Khan and Jeep Driver Hakim Khan sustained injuries resulting into their death, whereas the passengers of the jeep, namely, Chhatar Dan, Jaani and Rani received injuries and the jeep was also damaged. Separate Claim petitions were preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased and injured persons before the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal after framing the issues, adjudicating the evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties partly allowed the claim petitions and awarded compensation to the claimants as mentioned in the impugned judgments.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, while attacking the finding on issue No. 4 (in claim case Nos. 34 & 35) and issue No. 3 (in claim case Nos. 41 to 47) has submitted that when the cheque dated 10/01/1994 towards the Insurance of the Vehicle given by the owner of the vehicle was tendered in the bank by the Insurance Company, the same was dishonoured on 24/01/1994, therefore, the Insurance Company on 02/02/1994 cancelled the Insurance Cover Note dated 10/01/1994. An information to this effect was sent to the owner of the vehicle by the registered post. The same information was also sent through registered post on 03/02/1994 to the District Transport Officer, Jodhpur. Learned counsel submits that when the Insurance Cover Note (Ex. A-1) dated 10/01/1994 stood canceled, issuance of insurance policy in furtherance of the canceled cover note is of no consequence.

7. Learned Counsel further submits that even if it is assumed for a moment that some premium was paid thereafter, the date for covering the Insurance Policy would be effective from the date on which the premium was deposited by the insured. In these circumstances, the counsel submits that the presumption that premium was paid in the present case before issuance of the Insurance Policy on the face of it is baseless.

8. It is further contended that in the testimony of NAW 2 Kunj Bihari Dave, the chronological sequences of events came on record that cover note issued by the Insurance Company was canceled and nothing contrary was stated by this witness in the cross-examination. In view of the statement given by NAW 2 Kunj Bihari Dave, it is clear that at the time of accident, Insurance Cover of the vehicle was not in existence. It is also argued that no suggestion was given to the effect that any premium was paid after the cancellation of the cover note. To buttress his contention, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Coordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Deddappa & Ors vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2008) 2 SCC 595, Nat