Judgment 1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment dated 18.2.1999 and 12.2.1999 passed in Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal Case No. 23 and 34 of 1994 respectively by 4th Additional District Judge-cum Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Purnia, whereby the claim of the claimants has been allowed in part on contest with cost against the owner of the vehicle (appellant herein). 2. It appears that the appellant appeared in the claim case and filed written statement. He produced a cover note of the insurance certificate of the vehicle in question bearing No. B.R. 39-2368, however, registration number was not mentioned in the insurance certificate and the certificate only contains engine number and chassis number. The appellant-owner in the petition filed before the Tribunal stated that at the time of taking the policy, registration number of the vehicle was not allotted, as such, in the insurance policy the engine number and chassis number has been mentioned. Further, the appellant-owner stated that chassis number of the concerned vehicle has been wrongly mentioned in the insurance certificate due to clerical mistake of the Respondent-Insurance Company. 3. Learned Tribunal on consideration of the fact that registration number of the vehicle is not mentioned in the insurance certificate and admittedly the chassis number is different held that the insurance certificate available on record does not connect the concerned vehicle, and, accordingly awarded compensation against the owner and not against the insurer. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Respondent-Insurance Company never disputed about the issuance of certificate in question nor they have shown even in this Court despite several opportunities granted to them that the certificate in question relates to any other vehicle. The owner-appellant has been repeatedly contending that in the certificate chassis number of the concerned vehicle has been wrongly mentioned due to clerical mistake of the Insurance-company. Under such circumstances, it has been contended that the Respondent-Insurance Company cannot get away from the liability of paying compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants, and the learned Tribunal has committed error in fixing the liability upon the owner-appellant. 5. Vide order dated 4.7.2000 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 229 of 1999, in which Respondent-Insurance Company appeared through Mr. Harendra Narain Sinha and Mrs. Rekha Prasad, the Court directed it to be taken up analogous with Misc. 5. Vide order dated 4.7.2000 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 229 of 1999, in which Respondent-Insurance Company appeared through Mr. Harendra Narain Sinha and Mrs. Rekha Prasad, the Court directed it to be taken up analogous with Misc. Appeal No. 230 of 1999 as both the appeals arise out of the same accident relating to different claimants and the question involved in both the cases is also same. A supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the appellant and a copy of the same was served on the learned counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Company long back on 8.3.2002. This Court adjourned the matter several times to enable the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance-company to take instruction with respect to Annexure-3, but till date nothing has been produced nor any affidavit has been filed. Vide order dated 27.6.2002 this Court after taking notice of the fact that from Annexure-3, prima facie, it appears that the vehicle in question was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd., as a last indulgence, on the prayer made, adjourned hearing of the appeals for 12th July, 2002. 6. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance-company has submitted that despite his best efforts there has been no response to explain that the insurance certificate relates to which vehicle. He stated that he informed the authority of the Insurance-company by writing several letters. Having failed to get any response he fairly agreed for disposal of the appeal on the basis of the materials available on record. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the claimants have been kept denied of the claim for now over three and half years even from the date of judgment for no fault of their. He pointed out that, in fact, the claimants have been kept denied of the legitimate claim for now almost eight and half years since the victim died in the accident on 4.3.1994 for one reason or the other and also on account of the sheer negligence of the Insurance-company. 8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances aforementioned, this Court finds it difficult to sustain the impugned judgments insofar as it fixes liability upon the appellant to pay the compensation amount according to award. 8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances aforementioned, this Court finds it difficult to sustain the impugned judgments insofar as it fixes liability upon the appellant to pay the compensation amount according to award. Learned Tribunal has failed to take notice of the fact that there was no satisfactory explanation from the Respondent-insurance-company by producing any cogent evidence with respect to the certificate in question. Despite ample opportunity, even in this Court, the Respondent-Insurance Company has failed to satisfy that the certificate in question, the grant of which is not in dispute, does not relate the offending vehicle and relates to any other vehicle. Under such circumstances, this Court feels persuaded to accept the contention of the owner-appellant that chassis number of the concerned vehicle has wrongly been mentioned in insurance certificate due to clerical mistake of the Insurance-company and, in fact, the said certificate relates to the vehicle in question. 9. Accordingly, both these appeals are allowed. The impugned judgments to the above extent are set aside. The Respondent-Insurance-company is held liable to pay compensation amount as awarded under the impugned judgments. Accordingly, the Respondent-Insurance company is directed to pay the said compensation amount to the claimants positively within two weeks from today.