M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal throws up a controversy of some consequence which is one of the reasons why it has not been disposed of for the last over 7 years. Briefly stated, one Ramachandra Shirahatti, hereinafter referred to as the deceased sustained fatal injuries on 31. 5. 1986 at about 10 a. m. near a petrol pump in Saun-datti town when he was fatally knocked down by autorickshaw bearing registration No. NWJ 389 which was a temporary number issued by the R. T. O. , kolhapur. The wife and children of the deceased preferred a claim before the M. A. C. T. at belgaum, and they had effectively directed the claim against the respondent No. 4 who is the new India Assurance Co. Ltd. The genesis of the controversy arises because of the fact that this was a new vehicle and it appears that as normally happens, on the payment of the premium, a cover note was issued and on the basis of this cover note the R. T. O. at Kolhapur had issued the temporary registration. As indicated by us, the accident occurred on 31. 5. 1986 and it appears that the cover note had been issued on 28. 5. 1986,. e. , 3 days earlier and the validity of this cover note was up to 27. 6. 1986. As far as the law is concerned, there is no difficulty in the matter of holding that the insurance cover becomes valid on the issuance of the cover note and that if a liability were to arise even before the policy document has been issued by the company, that the insurance company would still be liable. In this case, however, what has happened is something entirely different. ( 2 ) THE New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , appeared before the M. A. C. T. and took up the contention that it cannot be held liable because the company had verified from its records and according to the insurance company cover note bearing No. 202703 of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , was issued on 12. 6. 1986 to one Suresh S. Pat-ane a resident of Kolhapur in respect of a Premier padmini car bearing No. MXO 5231 covering the period from 12. 6. 1986 to 11. 7. 1986. Ltd. , was issued on 12. 6. 1986 to one Suresh S. Pat-ane a resident of Kolhapur in respect of a Premier padmini car bearing No. MXO 5231 covering the period from 12. 6. 1986 to 11. 7. 1986. Insurance company thereby contended that cover note which according to the claimants covered the autorickshaw which was involved in the accident, in fact did not pertain to that vehicle and it pertains to some other vehicle. The contention raised therefore was that until and unless evidence can be produced before the Tribunal either in the form of a cover note or a policy document which establish that respondent No. 4 was the insurer of the autorickshaw that was involved in the accident, that no liability could devolve on the insurance company. Though this position was seriously contested by the applicants, the respondent No. 4 examined its Development Officer as d-1 and this witness has again reiterated the position that the cover note in question does not pertain to the vehicle that was involved in the accident. The learned member of the M. A. C. T. has quantified the overall compensation and has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,10,000 payable by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly, who were really the driver and the owner because the Claims tribunal has held that the material before the court does not justify the award of any amount as against the R-4 insurance company. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed and there is also a prayer for enhancement. ( 3 ) THE record of this case will indicate that on more than one occasion the Division Bench of this court has tried to unravel this difficulty that has arisen obviously in order to ensure that no injustice occurs. We have, on the one hand, a situation whereby the deceased who was the sole bread-earner of the family has met with his death in the accident and his wife and two minor children have come forward to claim the compensation. The court has upheld the claim and has quantified the compensation but as always happens, a recovery directed against the owner and driver particularly in situations of this type is totally worthless for the simple reason that these persons were not even traceable and even if they are traceable, it would be impossible to recover any amount from them. The court has upheld the claim and has quantified the compensation but as always happens, a recovery directed against the owner and driver particularly in situations of this type is totally worthless for the simple reason that these persons were not even traceable and even if they are traceable, it would be impossible to recover any amount from them. The solitary question is as to whether the Tribunal was right in having exonerated the insurance company of its liability. At the same time, in view of the contention taken up by the insurance company this Court on all the earlier occasions had made very serious efforts for purposes of finding out whether in fact the error which the insurance company is pleading is genuine. Towards this end, the court had summoned several documents, the court had raised several queries and we have at the end of all this exercise found that one is virtually back at square one. What is pointed out on behalf of the insurance company is understandable because even today, their learned Counsel submitted that if the claimants are able to produce any documents or details on the basis of which it can be established that the autorickshaw was insured by R-4 that the insurance company would certainly honour the claim. Learned counsel has also pointed out to us that this is an incident relating to the year 1986 and that admittedly at that point of time the use of computers had not commenced and, therefore, the only method of tracing the policy document would be on the basis of the number and other particulars. Learned counsel states that as would be evident from what has transpired before the High Court on the earlier occasions and before the Tribunal that the insurance company itself has made all possible efforts to ascertain as to whether this vehicle was insured by the company and whether any cover note had been issued but that the company has not been able to find any positive evidence. He has submitted that even though in law the entire burden vests on claimants that the insurance company out of a sense of fairness has also done its duty by cooperating to the maximum extent and has still virtually drawn a blank. One explanation put forward in the court room is that the extract Exh. He has submitted that even though in law the entire burden vests on claimants that the insurance company out of a sense of fairness has also done its duty by cooperating to the maximum extent and has still virtually drawn a blank. One explanation put forward in the court room is that the extract Exh. P-4 which has been obtained from the R. T. O. at Kolhapur undoubtedly gives the cover note number as 202703 but the name of the insurance company was originally typed as united India wherein the word United has been scored out and the word New has been substituted in hand. The submission can vassed is that possibly this is where the mistake has taken place and that is why his clients have not been able to trace out the policy or the details. He also placed strong reliance on the affidavit dated 24. 9. 2001 which has been filed by one S. B. Patil who was the Development Officer with this company in the year 1986 and he has stated that the cover note of that number was issued to one Patane in respect of the vehicle No. MXO 5231 on 12. 6. 1986. The learned Counsel submits that all this will very clearly indicate that there is an obvious error and that R-4 has wrongly been made a party and that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in having dismissed the liability vis-a-vis R-4. He has also placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in ILR1997 KAR 1980 , wherein a learned single Judge of this Court had laid down that, it is the duty of the claimants or the owners of the vehicle to furnish the necessary particulars in order to show that the offending vehicle was insured on the relevant date by the insurance company and that it is not for the insurance company to prove that the vehicle is not insured with them. The submission canvassed is that the claimants have failed in their duty and that the insurance company has fully discharged its obligations by establishing that the cover note does not cover this vehicle. ( 4 ) ALL that has been submitted on behalf of the claimants is that whenever an accident takes place the only method of tracing the owner and driver is through the police and through the registering authorities. ( 4 ) ALL that has been submitted on behalf of the claimants is that whenever an accident takes place the only method of tracing the owner and driver is through the police and through the registering authorities. What has been pointed out to us is that this being a new vehicle the appellants had no particulars and details with them and that they have stated so in the F.. R. On the other hand, when the extract was asked for from the R. T. O. at Kolhapur the claimants were furnished with document P-10 and this document very clearly indicated that the vehicle was insured with the new India Assurance Co. Ltd. , under No. 202703. It is not clearly indicated in this extract as to whether this number pertains to the insurance policy principally or to the cover note but we assume that it refers to the cover note because the validity period is given as 28. 5. 1986 to 27. 6. 1986 and having regard to the fact that it was a new vehicle and the cover is only of one month, it is clear that the number is of a cover note. The appellants learned advocate submits that the appellants have no reason to dispute the correctness of this document and its contents and she further submits that the respondents are precluded from disputing the correctness of Exh. P-10 or its contents. The further submission is that if respondents case is that the cover note pertains to some other person and some other vehicle, then it is very clear that the affairs of the r-4 are not in order and that the claimants cannot suffer for this. Beyond Exh. P-10 we have no other material on record for purposes of establishing a nexus between R-4 and the vehicle in question. ( 5 ) TO start with, we do not dispute the correctness of the proposition canvassed by the respondents learned advocate that the basic duty of furnishing the particulars lies with the claimants and that this duty or onus of proof cannot shift to the other side. In the present case, the claimants have discharged this duty insofar as a victim of an accident or the legal representatives can only go to the registering authorities and obtain an extract from the register and produce the same before the court. Exh. In the present case, the claimants have discharged this duty insofar as a victim of an accident or the legal representatives can only go to the registering authorities and obtain an extract from the register and produce the same before the court. Exh. P-10 is an extract issued by the designated authority and this extract is a reproduction of what obtains in the register. The claimants had also obtained exh. P-14 which is the temporary registration certificate from the same authority and a comparison of Exhs. P-10 and P-14 indicates that these documents pertain to the same vehicle even to the extent that the engine number, etc. , tallies. There is no ground whatsoever on which we can reject Exh. P-10 in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The respondents learned Counsel has submitted that there is obviously an error in either the cover note number or the name of the insurance company or both. We cannot accept this submission for the simple reason that this particular document Exh. P-10 has been issued by the R. T. O. at Kolhapur and there are legal presumptions that attach to these documents, the first of them being a presumption of correctness. Exh. P-10 is a certified copy and in this background in our considered view the tribunal was in error in having entertained the challenge from R-4 which culminated in the rejection of Exh. P-10. It may be that the R-4 has disputed its liability and it may be that they have produced some other internal material of theirs in support of their plea that this cover note does not pertain to the present vehicle but that in our considered view is extraneous material and we cannot go into an inquiry or hypothesis as to how and under what circumstances the records of the insurance company show that the cover note pertains to some other vehicle. On the record as it stands, this Court would be fully justified in accepting the correctness of Exh. P-10 and proceeding on that basis. On the record as it stands, this Court would be fully justified in accepting the correctness of Exh. P-10 and proceeding on that basis. The earlier inquiries conducted by this Court have gone into various angles, one of them was the question as to whether the books issued to the various agents of the company and the Development Officers were correctly numbered, whether there were more than one series and so on and so forth but none of these inquiries has been able to yield any results. Even the R. T. O. at Kolhapur when asked to clarify the position by this Court has through letter dated 22. 2. 2002 indicated that none of the old records are now available. Under these circumstances even though the respondents learned Counsel has submitted that some further inquiry should be held for purposes of finding out whether the cover note pertains to some other insurance company, is something that is not called for, nor is it feasible. In our considered view, the court would be fully justified in proceeding on the basis of the legal position that Exh. P-10 is a genuine document, that Exh. P-10 does specify that R-4 is the insurer of the vehicle. One of the submissions canvassed by the respondents learned Counsel was that Exh. P-10 only refers to the cover note and this is the only material on the basis of which this Court will have to act. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons indicated by us above, we hold that the respondent No. 4 is in fact the insurer of the vehicle. The M. A. C. T. has quantified the aggregate compensation payable at Rs. 4,10,000 and even though the appellants learned advocate made a strong plea on various grounds that this amount should be enhanced we are not inclined to interfere with the findings recorded by the tribunal. The second plea that was canvassed was that interest has been awarded at 4 per cent and the submission was that at the relevant time in many of the claims the courts have in their discretion awarded interest at higher rates going up to even 6 per cent and 12 per cent. The strong submission that is canvassed before us is that even if the court does not enhance the compensation that at least the rate of interest should be enhanced to 12 per cent. The strong submission that is canvassed before us is that even if the court does not enhance the compensation that at least the rate of interest should be enhanced to 12 per cent. This has been strongly opposed by the respondents learned Counsel who has submitted without prejudice to his contention that his clients are not at all liable, that at the relevant time the rate of interest awarded was at 4 per cent and he also points out that assuming without admitting that respondent no. 4 is ultimately liable that the court would have to take into consideration the fact that an abnormally long period of time has elapsed in this case and that the amount of interest awardable is substantial having regard to the quantum of the compensation. We have considered all the relevant aspects on both sides and even though under normal circumstances we would have certainly enhanced the rate of interest, in the special facts and circumstances of the present case particularly having regard to the time factor and the quantum of interest that would be involved, we are not inclined to enhance the rate of interest that has been awarded by the Tribunal. ( 7 ) THE appeal partially succeeds and stands disposed of. The respondent No. 4 is directed to compute and deposit the amount with the Tribunal within an outer limit of 12 weeks from today. We further direct, that the same proportion of apportionment as had been indicated by the tribunal shall hold good. 50 per cent of the aggregate compensation shall be paid over to the wife who is claimant No. 1 and the balance 50 per cent shall be divided equally between claimant Nos. 2 and 3 who are the son and daughter respectively. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not direct that any of the amounts shall be invested as we leave it to the discretion of the claimants themselves to decide with regard to this. ( 8 ) WITH these directions, the appeal to stand disposed of.