JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. : The judgment dated 11th November, 1997 passed by the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 404 of 1990 is assailed by the appellant-Insurance Company on the ground that the offending vehicle was not covered by a valid insurance policy. It is submitted that out of the same accident Workmen’s Compensation Case No. 304 of 1999 was also filed by one of the injured and matter came before this Court in M.A. No. 156 of 1994. This Court after perusing the materials and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, set aside the award of the Commissioner and remitted the matter back to the Commis¬sioner mainly on the ground that no insurance policy was produced and directed the Commissioner to dispose of the matter afresh. 2. In the case at hand, as would be evident from para-7 of the judgment, the Tribunal basing upon the endorsement made in the seizure list to the effect that the offending truck was duly insured with the present appellant, saddled the compensation on it. According to Mr. Roy the insurance policy number mentioned in the seizure list was an error for which the policy could not be traced out by the appellant. However, in the meanwhile the appel¬lant Insurance Company has traced out the policy. The said policy has been filed before this Court along with a petition under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC praying to accept the same as an additional evidence. 3. Mr. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner respondents, on the other hand resists the submissions of Mr. Roy mainly on the ground that the accident in question occurred in the year 1990, and seventeen years have passed in the meanwhile and the poor petitioner-respondents are running from pillar to post to get the compensation. It is submitted that neither in the statement written nor in the original appeal memo any stand is taken by the Insurance Company to the effect that there was no valid insurance policy of the offending vehicles. In view of the said facts the belated plea taken in the present appeal cannot be accepted. 4. Law is well settled that liability of the Insurance Company accrues on the basis of a valid insurance policy. If no policy existed on the date of the accident, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay any compensation. In view of the said facts the belated plea taken in the present appeal cannot be accepted. 4. Law is well settled that liability of the Insurance Company accrues on the basis of a valid insurance policy. If no policy existed on the date of the accident, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay any compensation. Law is also well settled that the liability to pay compensation is that of the owner and only by virtue of the term of the insurance policy the Insurance Company pays the same. 5. In view of the fact that the learned Tribunal has not taken the pains to examine as to whether the vehicle was covered by a valid insurance policy on the date of accident and has saddled compensation on the appellant-Insurance Company, this Court feels that the ends of justice will be better served if the impugned award is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal as has been done by this Court in M.A. No. 156 of 1994 (supra). 6. Considering that the accident took place in the year 1996, this Court directs the Tribunal to dispose of the case afresh as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. Out of the amount lying in deposit before this Court a sum of Rs.25,000/ - along with interest accrued thereon be released in favour of the petitioner respondents who shall receive the same after executing necessary bond. The aforesaid payment shall be treated as “no fault liability”. While passing the final order, the Tribunal shall take the aforesaid payment into consideration and direct accordingly. The balance amount be returned to the appel¬lant-Insurance Company with accrued interest thereon. Misc. Appeal disposed of.