ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the United India Insurance company Limited, Hyderabad against the award and decree dated 11-2-2002 in op No. 1326 of 1999 on the file of the court of II-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to the filing of this appeal can be summarised as follows : ( 3 ) ON 26-9-1998 at about 8. 00 a. m. , when the petitioner was going on cycle from Gadwal Center towards Hanmantekdi said and by the time he reached the road near Gadwal Saree Centre, Abids, an auto bearing Regn. No. IAP-28-T 262 came in high speed and in rash and negligent manner from Hanmantekdi, side and dashed against the petitioner, as a result of which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to osmania General Hospital, where he underwent treatment as in-patient. The Police of Abids registered a case in Cr. No. 281/98. On account of injuries sustained by the petitioner, he suffered severe pain and inconvenience besides incurring medical expenses. Hence, the petition filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 70,000-00. ( 4 ) BEFORE the Court below the first respondent therein remained ex parte. Second respondent filed its counter denying the material averments made in the petition and the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive. Petition is therefore sought to be dismissed. ( 5 ) ON the basis of the above pleadings, the Court below framed the following issues for determination :1. Whether the accident is due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of respondent No. 1 ?2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount ?3. Whether Respondent No. 2 is liable to pay compensation in view of dismissal of the petition against Respondent no. 1?4. To what relief ? ( 6 ) TO substantiate the claim, petitioner examined himself as PW. 1 and marked certified copies of FIR, charge-sheet, mlc report, discharge card issued by osmania General Hospital, bunch of six medical bills and copy of policy under Exs. A1 to A6. On behalf of respondents no oral and documentary evidence is adduced. 1?4. To what relief ? ( 6 ) TO substantiate the claim, petitioner examined himself as PW. 1 and marked certified copies of FIR, charge-sheet, mlc report, discharge card issued by osmania General Hospital, bunch of six medical bills and copy of policy under Exs. A1 to A6. On behalf of respondents no oral and documentary evidence is adduced. ( 7 ) CONSIDERING the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal observed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle and partly allowed the claim-petition on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant, his age, consequential pain and suffering and inconvenience undergone by him and the expenditure of medicines purchased and granted compensation of Rs. 35,000-00 as against the claim of Rs. 70,000-00 holding that Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above compensation together with proportionate costs and subsequent interest @ 9% p. a. , thereon from the date of application till its realization. While awarding the compensation, the Tribunal further observed that since there is no dispute that the offending auto is owned by the owner-Respondent No. 1 and is insured with Respondent No. 2 and held both of them are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. Assailing the award and decree of the Court below, the United India Insurance company Limited filed this appeal. ( 8 ) MR. A. Ramakrishna Reddy, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that except the oral evidence of pw. l, the appellant did not examine the doctor who treated him and moreover the appellant has not produced any record to show his loss of income. The learned counsel further brought to the notice of his Court that the Tribunal erred in appreciating Ex. A6 Insurance Policy of the vehicle in question, in which it is clearly mentioned that the Insurance Policy was issued for the period from 22-10-1998 to 21-10-1999 only, whereas the accident occurred on 26-9-1998. Thus, it is clear that as on the date of the accident there is no policy existing on the vehicle bearing no. AP. 28-T-262 and therefore, the claim-petition itself is liable to be dismissed against the Insurance Company on this ground alone. Thus, it is clear that as on the date of the accident there is no policy existing on the vehicle bearing no. AP. 28-T-262 and therefore, the claim-petition itself is liable to be dismissed against the Insurance Company on this ground alone. He further contends that without noticing the period of insurance covered under the policy, the Tribunal grossly erred and came to a conclusion that the auto was insured with the Insurance company and is therefore liable to pay the compensation, which is contrary to the contents of Ex. A6 and is liable to be set aside. ( 9 ) HEARD the learned Counsel on either side. Perused the oral and documentary evidence placed on record and the award passed by the Court below. ( 10 ) ON perusal of Ex. A6 copy of the Insurance Policy, it appears that the learned II-Additional Chief Judge has failed to take note of the terms and conditions and period of insurance coverage enshrined in the Insurance Policy marked under Ex. A6 and the learned Trial Judge had blindly passed the award in a casual manner without verifying the recitals as mentioned in Ex. A6. The policy was issued to the vehicle in question covering the period from 22-10-1998 to 21-10-1999, whereas the accident occurred on 26-9-1998. Therefore, the said policy is not covered on the vehicle in question as on the date of accident. Further when there is no valid and subsisting policy on the date of accident, the question of fastening the liability on the Insurance Company could not and would not arise. It is rather unfortunate on the part of the learned Trial Judge, who is not diligent enough in discharge of his duties as Judicial Officer. Except the evidence of PW. 1 there is no evidence to show that the appellant examined the doctor who treated him nor produced any record to show his loss of income. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has rightly contended that the Tribunal erred in appreciating Ex. A6 Insurance Policy of the vehicle in question, in which it is clearly mentioned that the Insurance Policy was issued for the period from 22-10-1998 to 21-10-1999 only and whereas the accident occurred on 26-9-1998. Therefore, it can be inferred that as on the date of the accident there is no policy existing on the vehicle bearing No. AP. A6 Insurance Policy of the vehicle in question, in which it is clearly mentioned that the Insurance Policy was issued for the period from 22-10-1998 to 21-10-1999 only and whereas the accident occurred on 26-9-1998. Therefore, it can be inferred that as on the date of the accident there is no policy existing on the vehicle bearing No. AP. 28-T-262 and the very claim-petition itself is liable to be dismissed against the Insurance Company on this ground alone. I have no speck of doubt to hold that the learned Trial judge has awarded compensation without verifying Ex. A6, which is a grave mistake on his part. This type of award will certainly become a prime example of how a Judicial Officer who is holding the post of Chairman of Motor Accident Claims tribunal had discharged his duties perfunctorily without scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence. Time and again, the apex Court has held that though the Motor vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, the Tribunal is expected to award just and equitable compensation and it does not entitle the Tribunals to disburse the compensation like charity, even where the vehicle is not covered by the insurance. The apex Court in a recent decision New India assurance Company Limited v. Kiran singh, 2004 AIR SCW 4212, has held that the insurance is a covenant of good faith, where both parties are covenanted to abide by the terms and conditions of the. policy. It is further observed that the insurance Company must bear in mind that they are the trustee of the public and keeper of the public coffer. Therefore, the tribunal is not empowered to mulct to insurance Companies with the liability to which it is not liable at the whims and fancies of the Chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal. I have come across the judgment delivered by the very same judge not only in this appeal but also in another appeal (CMA No. 3723 of 2004 which arises out of OP. No. 1326 of 1999 on the file of the Court of II-Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad) wherein the learned Judge has committed similar type of deplorable mistake. No. 1326 of 1999 on the file of the Court of II-Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad) wherein the learned Judge has committed similar type of deplorable mistake. I am sorry to note that the learned Judge has succumbed to an unjust plea of the claimant, as if he is the Chairman of Charity, and awarded compensation even though the vehicle is not covered by the insurance, and therefore, stricture has to be recorded against the learned Judge in his service book with a warning that he should be more careful while delivering the judgments. It is nothing but with an attempt to curb such practice, I intend recording the facts of this case somewhat elaborately albeit, as stated above otherwise, it may not be necessary to do so. ( 11 ) IN view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to interfere with the impugned award passed by the II-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad and accordingly set aside the award to the extent of fastening the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the respondent-claimant. ( 12 ) ACCORDINGLY the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, it is open for the respondent- claimant to recover the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal from respondent No. 2 owner of the vehicle in question. No costs.