JUDGMENT Hon’ble R.K. Rastogi, J.—This is an appeal against award dated 27.1.1996 passed by Sri Rajdeo, then learned Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Illrd Addl. District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in M.A.C.P. No. 78 of 1994, Smt. Manju Gupta and others v. Rajendra Kumar and another. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the claimants-respondents No. 1 to 5 filed aforesaid claim petition in the Court of District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri against the appellant and respondents No. 6 to 8 with these allegations that Anand Kumar Gupta was husband of the claimant No. 1 and father of claimants No. 2 to 5. On 6.8.1994 at about 9.30 A.M. Anand Kumar Gupta was going from Tikonia to Lakhimpur on a Bajaj Super Scooter and when he reached near village Motipur police station Singahi, district Kheri, truck No. USH 2590 which was being driven towards back by its driver negligently, crushed Anand Kumar Gupta. Consequently, Anand Kumar Gupta died. His age was 36 years at that time and he was earning Rs. 2,500/- per month by doing his business. The claimants were widow and children of the deceased and they lost source of their livelihood due to his death. If Anand Kumar Gupta had not died at that time, he would have lived upto the age of 90 years and would have earned Rs. 7,00,000/- during this period. The claimants, therefore, claimed Rs. 7,00,000/- as compensation. 3.The claim petition was contested by the appellant as well as by respondents Nos. 6 to 8. The respondents No. 6 and 7 filed a joint written statement in which they admitted ownership of truck No. USH 2590 and pleaded that the vehicle was insured. They further pleaded that no accident had taken place with their above truck on the above date and the vehicle which had actually caused accident had disappeared from the spot; and their truck, which was following that vehicle, has been falsely implicated in the case. The truck was being driven by a licensed driver and he has got a valid licence to drive heavy motor vehicles. The accident had taken place between the scooter and the truck, but insurer of the scooter has not been impleaded and so the case is bad for its non-joinder. The claimants have claimed excessive amount of compensation. The truck was being driven by a licensed driver and he has got a valid licence to drive heavy motor vehicles. The accident had taken place between the scooter and the truck, but insurer of the scooter has not been impleaded and so the case is bad for its non-joinder. The claimants have claimed excessive amount of compensation. If the owners of the vehicle are found liable to pay compensation, their liability is to be borne by the National Insurance Company, as the vehicle was insured with it at the time of accident. The deceased was himself driving the scooter rashly and negligently and the accident took place due to his negligence. 4. The driver of the bus, respondent No. 8 filed a separate written statement in which he took the same pleas which were taken by respondents No. 6 and 7 in their written statement. 5. The appellant National Insurance Company filed a separate written statement in which it pleaded that the petition was not properly presented and verified as per rules and so it was not maintainable. The claimant had not filed site plan and details of accident, so it was not possible for the Insurance Company give proper reply. The factum of accident was also denied. It was further pleaded that if it is proved that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, then liability of Insurance Company will be limited to the extent of the policy. It may be mentioned that in para 6 of the written statement the Insurance Company had denied insurance of the vehicle with it. Registration certificate, driving licence and fitness certificates etc. had not been filed and unless and until these documents are found to be in order, there is no liability of the Insurance Company. The driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence. The accident had taken place due to negligence of the deceased himself. The Insurance Company also sought protection of the provisions of Sections 147, 149 and 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since the provisions of Section 64 (MV) of the Insurance Act have not been complied with, so the claim petition is not maintainable. It was also bad for non-disclosure of the particulars of insurance policy. The Insurance Company also sought protection of the provisions of Sections 147, 149 and 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since the provisions of Section 64 (MV) of the Insurance Act have not been complied with, so the claim petition is not maintainable. It was also bad for non-disclosure of the particulars of insurance policy. The claimants have given exaggerated description of the income of the deceased and they are not entitled to any interest on the award amount as per Motor Vehicles Act. 6. Following issues were framed in this case by the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal : (i) Whether the accident took place on 6.8.1994 at about 9 a.m. near village Motipur P.S. Singahi district Kheri from truck No. USH 2590 resulting into death of Anand Kumar Gupta? (ii) Whether truck No. USH 2590 was being driven rashly and negligently? (iii) To what amount of compensation, if any, are the claimants entitled? (iv) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of insurer of the scooter? (v) Whether accident took place due to negligence of deceased Anand Kumar Gupta? If so, its effect. (vi) Whether Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation amount? 7. The learned Presiding Officer held on issue No. 1 that accident had taken place on 6.8.1994 at 9 A.M. near village Motipur P.S. Singhi district Kheri from truck No. USH 2590 resulting into death of Anand Kumar Gupta. He decided issues No. 2 and 5 together and held that both - deceased Anand Kumar Gupta and truck driver were guilty of negligence but he held that percentage of negligence on the part of the deceased Anand Kumar Gupta was 75% and on the part of truck driver it was 25% only. He decided both these issues accordingly. 8. On issue No. 6 he held that truck was validly insured at the time of accident with the Insurance Company, O.P. No. 4 (appellant in the present appeal), and that O.P. No. 3 (respondent No. 8 in the present appeal) who was driver of the truck, had valid driving licence, and so Insurance Company was liable to bear the liability for payment of compensation to the claimants. He held on issue No. 4 that the case was not bad for non-joinder of insurer of the scooter. While dealing with issue No. 3 he assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. He held on issue No. 4 that the case was not bad for non-joinder of insurer of the scooter. While dealing with issue No. 3 he assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 1,800/- per month and held that he would have been spending Rs. 800/- per month upon himself, and so dependency of the claimants could be assessed to be Rs. 1,000/- per month. In this way, he assessed annual dependency at Rs. 12,000/- and after adopting multiplier of 13 years he fixed the amount for loss of dependency at Rs. 1,56,000/-, but taking into consideration that percentage of negligence of the truck driver was 25% only, he reduced this amount to 1/4th, i.e., Rs. 39,000/-. He also awarded Rs. 5,000/- to claimant No. 1 for loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000/- to the remaining claimants for the loss of love and affection of their father. He, therefore, allowed the total amount of Rs. 49,000/- as compensation with pendentelite and future interest on this amount till the date of actual recovery at the rate of 12% per annum and O.P. No. 4/the National Insurance Company (present appellant) was directed to pay this amount within a period of three months. Aggrieved with that award Insurance Company filed this appeal. 9. The learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 5 raised a preliminary objection before me that the National Insurance Company had not obtained any permission to contest the case under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and so it had no right to prefer this appeal. He cited before me a ruling of Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others, (2002) 7 SCC 456 , in which the same view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 10. In reply, the learned Counsel for the appellant cited before me another ruling of Hon’ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh and others, 2000 (2) T.A.C. 613 (SC), in support of this contention that where the Insurance Company had come with these allegations that the award has been obtained by committing fraud, the award can be challenged on that ground by the Insurance Company and the appeal shall not be barred on the ground that no permission under Section 170 Motor Vehicles Act was obtained by the Insurance Company. It is to be seen that in this case both, owner and insurer were parties in the Motor Accident Claims Petition and the award had been passed by the Tribunal against both of them. After passing of four months from the date of award the insurer received information that claimants had sustained injuries in a different manner under different circumstances at a different place and actually no accident had taken place. Then it moved an application before the Tribunal for recall of the award, but that application was rejected. Then the insurer challenged that order by filing a writ petition before the High Court. That was also dismissed. Then the insurer filed an appeal before Hon’ble Apex Court and the Apex Court held that when the allegations are that the award has been obtained by committing fraud the application of the Insurance Company to challenge that award was maintainable and the matter was remanded to the tribunal by the Hon’ble Apex Court for fresh hearing. 11. It is now to be considered as to which of the aforesaid rulings is applicable to the facts of the present case. 12. The appellant has alleged in paras 1 to 4 of the grounds of appeal that photo copy of the insurance cover note (paper No. C-25) filed before the Tribunal was actually a forged document and the vehicle was not insured at the time of accident. It has also been alleged that Insurance Company came to know about this forgery at a belated stage when award had already been passed and so he should be permitted to challenge the award on this plea. The appellant has filed in this appeal a photo copy of the letter issued from its Paliakalan office district Kheri to its Divisional Office, Sitapur in which it has been stated that record of the above office revealed that no cover note, photostat copy of which was filed from the side of claimants in the aforesaid claim petition, was issued from its office. It is Annexure 2 to the affidavit filed in support of the application for stay. The Insurance Company has also filed a photostat copy of another letter issued by its Divisional Office, Sitapur to its legal department at Lucknow as Annexure 2 to the above affidavit. It is Annexure 2 to the affidavit filed in support of the application for stay. The Insurance Company has also filed a photostat copy of another letter issued by its Divisional Office, Sitapur to its legal department at Lucknow as Annexure 2 to the above affidavit. In this letter also, it has been asserted that photo copy of the insurance cover note filed in the claim petition was a forged document. These letters are dated 2.4.1996 and 12.4.1996 respectively. 13. The learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that a perusal of the photo copy of insurance cover note, (paper No. 25 Ga on record of the trial Court) itself reveals that it is a forged document. He submitted that there is over-writing in the figures of dates at the top of the cover note below a few lines, which have been encircled by blue ink in that photo copy. 14. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of this allegation, I am of the view that taking into consideration the above allegation of fraud and forgery and the letters of Insurance Company, referred to above, prima facie, there appears some substance in the above allegation of the appellant-National Insurance Company, and so the ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insutrance Company Ltd., referred to above, is applicable to the facts of the present case and the appellant can be permitted to challenge its liability to pay the amount of compensation on the ground of so called fraud and forgery. Moreover, it is also to be seen that Insurance Company is barred to challenge the award and its liability to pay compensation amount beyond the scope of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act when it admits the factum of insurance of the vehicle, but when the Insurance Company denies the factum of insurance, it cannot be said that its plea cannot be considered for want of permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, because bar of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act is applicable where the Insurance Company admits insurance, but when insurance is denied, the bar shall not be applicable. 15. The position in this way is that further probe is required in the present case as to whether photo copy of the insurance cover note which has been filed from the claimants’ side is a genuine document or not. 15. The position in this way is that further probe is required in the present case as to whether photo copy of the insurance cover note which has been filed from the claimants’ side is a genuine document or not. Since it is not possible for this Court to take evidence of the parties here, there is no other alternative but to remand the matter to the tribunal concerned to record a fresh finding on issue No. 6 regarding liability of Insurance Company in the present case. 16. It may be mentioned that Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 49,000/- as compensation and pendente lite and future interest till the date of actual recovery at the rate of 12% per annum against all the respondents No. 6 to 9, who were impleaded as O.Ps. No. 1 to 4 in the claim petition. The aforesaid award has not been challenged by owners and driver of the vehicle, respondents No. 6 to 8. In this appeal they had filed Vakalatnama of Sri Rajiv Misra and Sri Mayank Misra, Advocates but they have not appeared to say anything in this appeal. The claimants have also not challenged the quantum of award allowed by the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that so far as owner and driver of the vehicle (Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 in the claim petition and respondents No. 6 to 8 in the present appeal) and the claimants (Respondents No. 1 to 5) are concerned, the award has become final between them. The only disputed point is whether liability to pay the amount of compensation is to be borne by Insurance Company or not, and the matter deserves to be remanded to the Tribunal for recording fresh findings on this point only. 17. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed for determination of the aforesaid dispute regarding liability of the Insurance Company only. 18. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed to this extent only that the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No. 6 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the said Tribunal for a fresh finding on this issue. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed for determination of the aforesaid dispute regarding liability of the Insurance Company only. 18. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed to this extent only that the finding of the Tribunal on Issue No. 6 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the said Tribunal for a fresh finding on this issue. The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal concerned after receipt of record of the case shall provide an opportunity to the claimants as well as to owners, driver and insurer of the vehicle to produce their evidence on the disputed fact of insurance of the vehicle at the time of accident, and after taking evidence of the parties on this point he shall determine the liability of the Insurance Company. The award passed by the Tribunal is maintained against the owners and driver of the vehicle, i.e. O.Ps. No. 1 to 3 of the claim petition who have been impleaded as respondents No. 6 to 8 in the present appeal. That order has not been touched by me and it shall remain binding upon the above mentioned claimants and owners as well as driver of the vehicle. The liability of Insurance Company to bear the above amount shall be decided by the Tribunal after providing opportunity to all concerned parties to produce evidence in respect thereof. The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal shall decide the above point at an early date, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of its record along with certified copy of this order. 19. The amount deposited by the appellant, National Insurance Company, shall be disposed of according to the order of the Tribunal which may be passed by it after recording finding on issue No. 6. 20. The lower Court record along with certified copy of this judgment shall be sent by the Registry to the Court concerned within a period of 15 days from the date of this order.