The main legal point established is the obligation of the insurer to pay compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the requirement to prove the cancellation of the cover note to exonerate the insurer.

( 1 ) THIS order shall govern the aforesaid both the appeals, i. e. , m. A. Nos. 1356 and 1357 of 1997 as both are arising out of the same award, although from the different claim cases but relating to the same accident.

( 2 ) THE appellant owner of the offending vehicle has directed this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short 'the Act') being aggrieved by the award dated 30. 6. 1997 passed by the Additional motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chhind wara in Claim Case Nos. 189 and 190 of 1992 awarding the claim of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 against the appellant and the respondent No. 5, the driver by exonerating respondent No. 6, insurer and respondent no. 7, the rickshaw puller.

( 3 ) THE facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 25. 5. 1989 at about 9 o'clock in the night Namdeo Karade and his wife kamla Bai, the mother of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 along with children were going towards the railway station in the rickshaw of the respondent No. 7. On the way in between the Bail Bazar and PWD Road (Chhindwara-Seoni Road), the said rickshaw was dashed by truck No. MTG 1590, driven by respondent No. 5 in a rash and negligent manner. Resultantly, the rickshaw was turned turtle and said Namdeo Karade and Kamla Bai were run over by the said truck and died on the spot. The offence was registered under section 304-A of Indian penal Code against respondent No. 5. The dead bodies of the deceased were sent to hospital where post-mortem was carried out and after holding investigation the respondent No. 5 was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence.

( 4 ) THE deceased Namdeo Karade was working as Diesel Assistant in Railways and getting the salary of Rs. 2,200 after all the deductions. He was aged 48 years on the date of the accident. While Kamla Bai being household lady also doing the work of stitching and knitting by which she was earning Rs. 1,000 per month. She was 38 years old on the date of the accident. Due to untimely death of mother and father of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 they have been deprived of their dependency, love, affection and their company. With this background on account of death of father Namdeo karade the Claim Case No. 189 of 1992 was filed for compensation of Rs. 7,92,000 while on account of mother Kamla Bai the claim Case No. 190 of 1992 was preferred for compensation of Rs. 4,80,000 and also prayed for interest in both the claims on the aforesaid sum.

( 5 ) AS per further averments of the claim on the date of accident the offending truck was owned by the appellant as registered owner and it was driven by respondent No. 5 with the consent and under the employment of the appellant. While the same was insured with respondent No. 6, insurer. Therefore, aforesaid claims were preferred with a prayer to saddle the liability against respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and the appellant jointly and severally.

( 6 ) IN reply of the driver, respondent No. 5, the factum of accident has been accepted but the contention regarding rash and negligent driving of the truck was denied. According to it, the accident took place due to negligence of the rickshaw puller. It was also pleaded that on holding any liability of him, then, the truck, was duly insured with respondent No. 6. Hence the insurer is liable to indemnify such claim. No liability can be saddled against this respondent. He also pleaded that the cover note No. MR 86/ 280559 was issued on behalf of respondent no. 6.

( 7 ) AS per record the appellant and respondent No. 7 remained exparte and no reply or written statement was filed on their behalf.

( 8 ) IN the written statement of respondent no. 6-insurer the averments of claim petition were denied. It was also denied that the offending truck was insured with it on the date of the accident. It was pleaded that cover note No. MR 86/280559 was issued by agent of respondent No. 6 under the assurance of appellant that within couple of hours the sum of premium would be paid. But subsequent to it,