B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE United India Insurance Company Ltd. the appellant herein has filed this appeal against the judgment and award dated 1st March 1981 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Junagadh in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 14 of 1978 filed by the original claimants Nos. 1 to 6 partly allowing the said petition and awarding in all Rs. 39 0 with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of pauper application till realisation with proportionate costs. ( 2 ) ONLY contention raised in this appeal by Mr. P. V. Nanavati learned Advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company is that the Insurance Policy (Ex. 26) was in the name of original opponent No. 6 Madhabhai Manbhai alias Malabhai on the date of the accident i. e. 28-2-77 and the said insurance was not transferred on the name of the new owner i. e. original opponent No. 1 Mer Karsan Jadav hence the Insurance Company is not liable. Therefore he submitted that the award passed by the learned Judge against the Insurance Company must be set aside. ( 3 ) IT is to be noted that the deceased Sura Karsan was aged 46 Years at the time of accident which took place on 28-2-77 at 5. 50 a. m. when he was going on his cycle from Porbandar towards the Aerodrome where he was knocked down by the station wagon (station van) bearing No. GTZ 1877 driven by original opponent No. 2. The deceased belonged to Charan community which is a backward community. The original claimants are widow and children of the deceased. They are illiterate. They filed Claim Petition No. 14/78 initially against original opponant No. 1. Mer. Karsan Jadav as the owner of the vehicle and opponent No. 2 Rajput Harisinh driver of the vehicle and Charan Lakhmabai (original opponent No. 3) on 8-7-77. Though opponents were served they did not remain present before the Tribunal. Therefore on 7-2-79 the claimants inquired from the RTO office at Rajkot about the particulars regarding the owner of the vehicle as to in whose name it was registered and they found that it was registered in the name of one Abdul Hussain Noorkhan and insured by United India Fire and General Insurance Company. Therefore on 19-2-79 an application (Ex. Therefore on 7-2-79 the claimants inquired from the RTO office at Rajkot about the particulars regarding the owner of the vehicle as to in whose name it was registered and they found that it was registered in the name of one Abdul Hussain Noorkhan and insured by United India Fire and General Insurance Company. Therefore on 19-2-79 an application (Ex. 10) was submitted on behalf of the claimants to join Abdul Hussain Noorkhan and United India Fire and General Insurance Company as opponents and accordingly the Tribunal passed an order on 19 to join them as opponents Nos. 4 and 5 respectively and issued notice against them. Opponent No. 4 was not remaining present before the Tribunal hence he was served by a public notice. ( 4 ) THE Insurance Company filed its written statement (Ex. 24 ). In para 2 it has specifically denied that the vehicle belonged to opponent No. 1 or any other opponents or that it was insured by either opponent No. 1 or any other opponents. In para ( 5 ) IT has been specifically stated that neither Mer Karsan (original opponent No. 1) nor Abdul Hussain Noorkhan (original opponent No. 4) was insured by the Insurance Company and therefore it is not liable. But in para ( 6 ) IT has been stated that one Madhabhai Manabhai of Mukdidha via Palitana was insured for vehicle GTZ 1877 as the owner thereof who had transferred the said vehicle before the date of the accident without intimation to and consent of the Insurance Company and as the policy came to an end the Insurance Company is not liable. 5 The policy is produced at Ex. 26. In the said policy the name of Madhabhai is shown as the owner of the vehicle in question. In view of that application (Ex. 29) was submitted on behalf of the claimants on 11-2-81 before the Tribunal stating that though notices were duly served upon original opponents Nos. 1 to 4 they have not remained present and as the Insurance Company has come out with a case that the vehicle was insured in the name of Madhabhai Manbhai on the date of the accident he may be joined as opponent No. 6. Accordingly on 12-2-81 the Tribunal ordered to join him as opponent No. 6. But he did not remain present before the Tribunal. Accordingly on 12-2-81 the Tribunal ordered to join him as opponent No. 6. But he did not remain present before the Tribunal. 6 Thereafter evidence was led before the Tribunal and after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record the Tribunal awarded Rs. 39 0 to the claimants instead of Rs. 50 0 ( 7 ) IN light of the aforesaid facts the contention raised by Mr. Nanavati is required to be considered. Mr. Nanavatis submission is that not only the claimants but their Advocate also admitted that the owner of the vehicle was Karsan Jadav (original opponent No. 1; therefore the policy (Ex. 26) came to an and as soon as the vehicle was transferred without the consent of or intimation to the Insurance Company. This submission of Mr. Nanavati has no substance. It is true that in the claim petition it is stated that opponent No. 1 Karsan Jadav is the owner but that was on hearsay information gathered by them. There was no proof with them regarding the same. Concession given by the Advocate of the party cannot be used against the poor illiterate persons coming from lower strata of the society. In this case fortunately the Insurance Company itself has come out with the case that the vehicle in question on the date of the accident stood insured in the name of opponent No. 5 Madhabhai Manbhai. It is not in dispute that on the day of the accident opponent No. 2 was driving the vehicle which stood duly insured in the name of Madhabhai Manbhai. Thus there was a valid policy of the vehicle. Once there is a valid policy in the name of a person who is a party in the claim petition who has not stated that the vehicle was transferred by him to any one else it is not open to the Insurance Company to contend that opponent No. 6 had transferred that vehicle to original opponent No. 1 Mer Karsan Jadav without its consent or without informing it. Except the bare word of the Insurance Company there is nothing on record to prove the say of the company. Except the bare word of the Insurance Company there is nothing on record to prove the say of the company. No evidence is led to show that Madhabhai Manbhai in fact transferred the said vehicle to opponent No. 1 Therefore on the facts and in the circumstances of the case it must be held that there was a valid policy of the vehicle on the day on which accident took place and the insurance company was liable. ( 8 ) IN the result this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. ( 9 ) THE amount if any lying in fixed deposit shall be paid to the claimants with interest thereon on its maturity date by the Tribunal by A/c payee cheque and the Tribunal shall see to it that the said amount duly reaches in the hands of the claimants. Thereafter the Tribunal shall report about the same to this Court immediately. Appeal Dismissed. .