Hansaria. J. — This appeal is by the insurer which has been made liable to pay a sum of Rs. 24,000/-as compensation for the death of one Sheonath Agrawalla on 22. 8 73. The offending vehicle was a truck bearing No. ASZ 6429. Sheonath was a driver of truck no.ask. 6429. At the relevant time, he was fitting right rear wheel of truck when he was dashed by the offending vehicle. The son of the deceased claimed a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. The deceased was aged about 55 years, at the relevant time and taking the life-span to be 65 years, the total loss to the claimant was assessed at Rs. 30,000/-, as the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.250/- from his salary and Rs. 150/-from daily allowance. In awarding compensation, the learned Tribunal felt that the de­ceased must have been spending Rs. 150/- on his personal expenses and therefore assessed the loss to the claimant at a sum of Rs. 250/-per month i. e. Rs. 3,000/- per year. The life-span having been taken as 65, the compensation claimed on that basis came to Rs. 30,000/-from which a deduction of 20% was made on account of lump turn payment. The total sum awarded was thus calculated at Rs. 24,000 on which interest 5% per annum was awarded alongwith cost of Rs. 400/-. 2. The only point urged by Shri Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant, is that there was no material on record to satisfy the learned Tribunal that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant. It is brought to our notice that a plea had been taken in para 11 of the written statement to the effect that the insurer could not ascertain as to whether the vehicle involved was really insured by the answering opposite party because the Policy No. had not been furnished. Now what had happened in this case was that the owner of the vehicle did not make his appearance for want of which Policy No. could not be known. The owner had been duly notified about the lodging of the claim petition but even then he remained silent. The claimant naturally could not have said anything in this regard. In such a situation the contention of Shri Choudhury is that it is the owner of the vehicle who should be made liable and not the insurer. The owner had been duly notified about the lodging of the claim petition but even then he remained silent. The claimant naturally could not have said anything in this regard. In such a situation the contention of Shri Choudhury is that it is the owner of the vehicle who should be made liable and not the insurer. It has been urged by Shri Choudhury that the present is not a case where the insurer was trying to avoid its liability by not filing the policy; it is a case where the appellant despite best efforts could not find out whether the vehicle was in fact insured with it. Our attention has been invited by the learned counsel in this connection to New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Mody Narainbah Maganbhai, 1986 ACJ 807, wherein it has been pointed out by a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court that it would not be possible for an Insurance Company having its branches throughout the country to know for definite whether any particular vehicle had been insured by it or not. 3. We have duly noted the observations made by the learned Judge in the aforesaid case and we are of the view that in a case of the present nature where the owner keeps absolutely silent and the claimant who apparently cannot have any direct knowledge in this regard, the claimant cannot be allowed to suffer because of the non-filing of the policy. At best what can be done in such a situation is that the insurer would be made liable to pay the compensation initially leaving it open to the insurer to realise the awarded amount from the owner of the vehicle in case it is found that the vehicle was not insured with the insurer in question. To allow a claimant to suffer on this score would not be in consonance with justice. 4. In view of the above and keeping in mind the fact that the insurer has already paid half of the awarded amount i. e. Rs. 12.000/-, we are of the view that the remaining Rs. 12,000/- should be made payable by the appellant-insurer along with the interest and cost as awarded, leaving it open to the appellant to realise the amount from the owner of the vehicle ASZ 4981, if it be that the vehicle was not insured with it. 5. 12.000/-, we are of the view that the remaining Rs. 12,000/- should be made payable by the appellant-insurer along with the interest and cost as awarded, leaving it open to the appellant to realise the amount from the owner of the vehicle ASZ 4981, if it be that the vehicle was not insured with it. 5. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed subject to the aforesaid observation. No order as to costs. S. N. Phukan J. — I agree.