S. VENKATARAMAN, J. ( 1 ) IN all these appeals, the insurer has questioned the finding of the Tribunal that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants. ( 2 ) THOUGH, in all the claim petitions the claimants impleaded the appellant as the insurer, they did not give any particulars regarding the insurance of the vehicle. The insurer in the objections filed has taken up the following defence: "this respondent is wrongly impleaded as a party. There is defect of misjoinder to the application. Inspite of repeated reminders, the second respondent has not come forward and this respondent has no knowledge as to the cover of insurance and hence denies any liability to indemnify the second respondent. " ( 3 ) THE Tribunal has fastened the liability on the insurer only on the ground that there is no specific denial of the fact of insurance by the appellant. ( 4 ) THE claimants who have sought to enforce their claim against the insurer are required to allege and if denied by the insurer prove the fact of insurance. It is also the duty of the owner of the vehicle if he wants to get the benefit of the insurance cover to plead about the fact of insurance and prove that fact if it is denied by the insurer. In these cases, neither the claimants nor the owner of the vehicle have given any particulars of the insurance with the appellant. The Tribunal was not justified in holding that the appellant had not denied the fact of insurance and as such proceeding on the basis that the vehicle is insured. If the claimant or the owner of the vehicle had given any particulars of the insurance then the insurer is expected to specifically deny that the vehicle was insured with them with reference to those particulars. Without any particulars being given the insurer would not be in a position to categorically assert that the vehicle is not insured. In such cases, the best thing that they can do is to plead about the fact that the particulars have not been given and that in the absence of those particulars they cannot admit the liability and on that ground dispute their liability. In such cases, the best thing that they can do is to plead about the fact that the particulars have not been given and that in the absence of those particulars they cannot admit the liability and on that ground dispute their liability. In the present case, the insurer after specifically mentioning that neither the owner of the vehicle nor the claimants had given any particulars of the insurance has stated that it has been wrongly impleaded and it has also denied any liability to indemnify the 2nd respondent. As such, the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the 2nd respondent has not specifically denied its liability or to assume that the fact of insurance had been admitted by the insurer. ( 5 ) UNDER the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 as well as 1988 the registering authority or the Police officer is required to furnish the particulars of the vehicle involved in the accident and as such it is not as if the insurance particulars cannot be secured at all. When once the insurance company disputes its liability to indemnify the liability of the owner of the vehicle on the ground that the insurance particulars are not given, it is for the claimants or the owner of the vehicle to place material on record to indicate that the vehicle was insured on the relevant date. This Court in new INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. NARAYAN BALAJI KULKARNI AND others MFA 282/83 has held that it is not for the insurance company to prove that the vehicle is not insured with them and that it is either for the claimants or the owner of the vehicle to prove that the vehicle was actually insured with the company when the fact of insurance was disputed. ( 6 ) IN the present case, the claimants have produced the notice issued by the police with regard to the accident. In that notice the column meant for showing the name and particulars of the insurer and the number of the insurance policy has been left blank. There is no other material on record to indicate that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant. In the circumstances, the insurer cannot be made liable for the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. There is no other material on record to indicate that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant. In the circumstances, the insurer cannot be made liable for the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. ( 7 ) BEFORE concluding it may be noted that under Section 96 of the M. V. Act, 1939 as well as under Section 149 of the M. V. Act, 1988 it would be the duty of the insurer to satisfy a judgment passed against the insured even if the insurer had not been made a party to the main proceedings. As such, even if the claimants in these cases or owner of the vehicle are able to trace the insurance particulars and make out that the vehicle was insured with the appellant on the relevant date, they can seek execution of the award against the insurer after furnishing those particulars and making out the fact that the vehicle was insured with the appellant. Sri S. P. Shankar, learned counsel for the appellant fairly concedes this position. Giving such liberty to the claimants / respondents, these appeals will have to be allowed. ( 8 ) FOR the above reasons, these appeals are allowed and the judgment and award of the Tribunal are modified by setting aside that portion of the judgment whereby the appellant is made liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Liberty as indicated above is given to the claimants.