JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - Both these appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company against a common award passed by the Fourth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puri, in two separate claim cases arising out of the very same accident. M.A.C. No. 555/89 had been filed by the widow of deceased Kanhu Charan Sahoo, whereas M.A.C. No. 558/89 had been filed by the widow of deceased Chandramani Pradhan claiming compensation. It was alleged that the accident was caused due to negligent driving of the Car bearing registration number ORC 8348 on 6.5.1989, as a result of which the two deceased received injuries and subsequently died. It was alleged that the two deceased persons alongwith others were returning to Bhubaneswar in the offending vehicle. It was further alleged that the vehicle belonged to Girish Chandra Dasgupta (present respondent No. 2) and had been insured with the present appellant. 2. The present respondent No. 2 in each of the appeals was the registered owner of the vehicle. He, however, took the plea that the vehicle had been transferred to one P.K. Adhya. He further took the plea that he learnt that the vehicle in question had been insured with the present appellant. 3. The Insurance Company filed written statement denying in general, the allegations made in the claim application. Subsequently, by way of amendment it was specifically pleaded that the Cover Note dated 4.5.1989 had not been issued as proposal form had not been received and premium had not been paid, but subsequently on receipt of proposal form and premium, insurance policy was issued effective from 11.5.1989 to 10.5.1990. It was further pleaded that since the accident had taken place on 6.5.1989, the Insurance Company was not liable. 4. It appears from the order-sheet that at one stage application had been filed on behalf of the claimant in each of the cases for impleading P.K. Adhya and such application had, in fact, been allowed and P.K. Adhya was impleaded as a party, but subsequently on the basis of application of claimant, P.K. Adhya was deleted and the matter proceeded between the claimant and present respondent No. 2 and the appellant. It further appears that the present respondent No. 2 though had taken a specific plea that the vehicle had been transferred to P.K. Adhya, he did not adduce any evidence. 5. It further appears that the present respondent No. 2 though had taken a specific plea that the vehicle had been transferred to P.K. Adhya, he did not adduce any evidence. 5. The Claims Tribunal found that the Cover Note dated 4.5.1989 was valid. However, certain suspicious features still remain to be explained. On behalf of the claimant a xerox copy of the Cover Note dated 4.5.1989 was produced and marked as Ext. 4. Subsequently on behalf of the Insurance Company Ext. D was produced which indicates that the Cover Note was cancelled. A comparison of Ext. 4 and Ext. D makes it clear that Ext. 4 is a xerox copy of Ext. D excepting the endorsement relating to cancellation, but with additional endorsements which are appearing in Ext. D but not appearing in Ext. 4 on the left side margin of such document. The Insurance Company has produced a true copy of the insurance policy apparently operative since 11.5.1989. The Insurance Company also produced a document purporting to be the proposal form purportedly signed on 11.5.1989. The said document was not admitted into evidence by the Tribunal on the ground that it was filed belatedly. The Tribunal has observed that signature of Girish Chandra Dasgupta appearing in the said proposal form appears to be very different from the signature of Girish Chandra Dasgupta in the Vakalatnama filed before the Tribunal. On going through the said document, which is now available on record, prima facie it appears that the observation of the Tribunal was correct. However, a careful examination of the said document indicates that the reference numbers indicated on the left side margin of Ext. 4 also find place in the said document. The present respondent No. 2 had pleaded that the vehicle had been transferred. Obviously he does not claim that he had got the vehicle insured with the present Insurance Company. He has not come to the witness box. If respondent No. 2, who was the registered owner, had not taken the insurance, it is apparent that the Cover Note under Ext. 4 which appears to be cancelled under Ext. D as well as the subsequent insurance policy produced by the Insurance Company were issued at the behest of some other person. The witnesses examined on behalf of the Insurance. Company have stated that the Cover Note under Ext. 4 which appears to be cancelled under Ext. D as well as the subsequent insurance policy produced by the Insurance Company were issued at the behest of some other person. The witnesses examined on behalf of the Insurance. Company have stated that the Cover Note under Ext. D had been cancelled arid it had never been issued to the owner and the copies were available in the office. The xerox copy of the Cover Note produced and marked as Ext. 4 was filed by the claimant. It is not understood as to how the claimant got hold of the xerox copy of a Cover Note which had been subsequently cancelled. If the claimant got it from the owner, it was for her to state so specifically in her evidence. Keeping in view all these mysterious circumstances, I think interest of justice would be served by remanding the matter to the Claims Tribunal for fresh determination. The present respondent No. 2 could be given further opportunity of adducing evidence if he so likes to explain various facts and circumstances. Similarly, the Insurance Company shall be given further opportunity to explain any of the ambiguities by adducing further oral and documentary evidence. The question as to whether the vehicle had been transferred prior to the date of accident is also required to be gone into. 6. Having regard to all the aforesaid aspects, the appeals are allowed and the matters are remanded to the Claims Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 22nd December, 1999. The records be sent back to the Claims Tribunal immediately. There would be no order as to costs.