JUDGMENT : V.V.S. RAO, J. 1. In this appeal, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. assails the award dated 11.7.2000 in M.V.O.P. No. 544 of 1999 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Third Additional District Judge, Chittoor. By the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/- while partly allowing the petition filed by the respondent No. 1 for compensation for the injuries he suffered in a motor accident. 2. The accident occurred on 5.9.1999 when respondent No. 1 was travelling as a pillion rider on scooter bearing No. AP 03-C 6180. At that time, while he was going to new Vegetable Market, Tirupati, a car bearing No. AP 03-C 2727 came in wrong side and dashed against scooter. Respondent No. 1 sustained injuries all over the body and suffered fracture to both bones of right leg. Statedly aged 36 years, he was earning a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month working as attender in Social Welfare Department. He therefore filed the O.P. claiming Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries. O.P. was opposed by insurer, inter alia, on the ground that policy of insurance in respect of car involved in the accident was up to 5.3.1998 and there was no insurance as on the date of accident. During the trial, injured examined himself as PW 1 and marked Exhs. A1 to A9 including Exh. A4, Accident Information Report ('accident report', for short) in Form No. 54 sent by Station House Officer, P.S. (Traffic) Tirupati. Exh. B1 policy was marked with consent. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that when the policy expired on 5.3.1998, long before the date of accident, insurer cannot be saddled with liability. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that when there is no evidence to show that policy expired on 5.3.1998, learned Tribunal placing reliance on Exh. A4 accident report is correct. 4. As per Exh. B1, policy No. 03923, it is valid from 6.3.1997 to 5.3.1998. As per Exh. A4 accident report sent by Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. (Traffic), Tirupati, policy is shown valid up to 5.3.2000. Which of the document is to be treated as relevant by the Tribunal adjudicating claim? A4 accident report is correct. 4. As per Exh. B1, policy No. 03923, it is valid from 6.3.1997 to 5.3.1998. As per Exh. A4 accident report sent by Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. (Traffic), Tirupati, policy is shown valid up to 5.3.2000. Which of the document is to be treated as relevant by the Tribunal adjudicating claim? Section 145 (d) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act', for brevity) defines "policy of insurance" to include "certificate of insurance", and section 145 (b) of the Act "certificate of insurance" means a certificate issued by an authorised insurer in pursuance of sub-section (3) of section 147 and includes a cover note complying with such requirements as may be prescribed under law. u/s 147 (3) of the Act, a policy of insurance shall be of no effect for the purposes of Chapter XI unless and until it is issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate of insurance in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars of any condition subject to which policy is issued and of any other prescribed matters. Thus Exh. A4 accident report cannot be treated as a policy of insurance u/s 145 (b) and (d) read with section 147 (3) of the Act. Accident report is required to be sent u/s 158 (6) of the Act, which contemplates that a police officer, the officer-in-charge of the police station shall forward a copy of the same within thirty days from the date of recording of information to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction. Report u/s 158 (6) of the Act cannot be equated to the policy u/s 147 (3) of the Act. Therefore, learned Tribunal cannot rely on accident report to appreciate question whether policy of insurance is valid and whether the motor vehicle involved in the accident is covered by such policy of insurance. When a policy of insurance is marked with consent, no further proof is required and learned Tribunal is bound to give importance to this policy and cannot prefer accident report to the policy itself. 5. This court has verified Exh. B1, the policy, which shows that it is valid up to midnight of 5.3.1998 and on the date of accident i.e., on 5.9.1999, vehicle is not insured with appellant. When the vehicle is not insured, insurer cannot be saddled with any liability. 5. This court has verified Exh. B1, the policy, which shows that it is valid up to midnight of 5.3.1998 and on the date of accident i.e., on 5.9.1999, vehicle is not insured with appellant. When the vehicle is not insured, insurer cannot be saddled with any liability. Therefore this civil miscellaneous appeal has to be allowed. 6. In the result, for the above reasons, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.