Judgment :- On 24.05.1996, at about 7 p.m., while the claimant Karthikesan was standing near Nagapattinam Kadambadi Women Polytechnic, a Tractor bearing Regn. No.TN 51 6661 with Trailor bearing Regn. No.TN 49 Z 4749 belonging to the second respondent herein was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the jeep bearing Regn. No.TNK 7669 belonging to the third respondent, which was insured with the fourth respondent and afterwards the said tractor hit the claimant, causing him injuries. But there is no dispute with regard to the fixing of liability on the driver of the tractor. The award of the Tribunal with reference to this aspect is very detailed one. 2. It was stated by the claimant in his claim petition that the tractor was insured with the present appellant insurance corporation. However, there were no particulars in the claim petition with regard to the insurance policy. Learned counsel for the appellant draws the attention of this Court to the pleadings contained in para 2 of the counter filed by the appellant before the Tribunal, which goes to the effect that the appellant had denied that the vehicle of the second respondent herein was insured with it and no insurance policy was subsisting on the date of the accident. Before the Tribunal, no steps were taken by the claimant to establish that the tractor was duly covered with the appellant insurance company. 3. As regards the insurance coverage, the award of the Tribunal is silent. The Tribunal has wrongly observed under Point No.2 that the appellant is the insurer of the vehicle of the second respondent. But it has not discussed about the features with regard to the insurance policy in its award. When it is definitely denied by the appellant insurance company that there was no insurance polity, it is incumbent upon the claimant to prove that the insurance policy was in force. In this case, those details are miserably absent. That being the case, it is in charitable to fasten the liability on the appellant insurance company. 4. When it is definitely denied by the appellant insurance company that there was no insurance polity, it is incumbent upon the claimant to prove that the insurance policy was in force. In this case, those details are miserably absent. That being the case, it is in charitable to fasten the liability on the appellant insurance company. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant cited an unreported decision delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.No.1389 of 1993 dated 28.02.1994, where Their Lordships have held that when the claimant has failed to establish that the insurance policy was in force at the time of accident, no liability could be fixed upon the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle should be held liable. Considering the circumstances of this case, it is to be held that the compensation as fixed by the Tribunal has to be paid by the owner of the tractor viz., the second respondent herein. 5. In fine, the appeal is allowed. No costs. The appellant/insurance company is absolved from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant and the second respondent herein, who is the first respondent before the Tribunal, is directed to pay the compensation to the claimant as fixed by the Tribunal. In other aspects, the award of the Tribunal shall stand as it is. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company that the entire award amount was deposited before the Tribunal and under the direction of this Court, the claimant has withdrawn 50% of the award. Hence, the appellant is at liberty to withdraw 50% of the award remaining with the deposit of the Tribunal and to recover 50% of the award withdrawn by the claimant, from the owner of the vehicle viz., the second respondent herein.