ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance company against the award dated 24.3.1999 passed by the MACT, Multai, District Betul in MCC No. 20/97 fastening thereby the liability on the Insurance Company for payment of compensation to the claimant-respondent No.1. 2. Short facts involved herein are that on 24.5.1996, the claimant was carrying his agricultural appliances when at around 6 p.m. he was hit by a truck No. MP-09K-2311 coming from opposite direction. Claimant sustained various injuries including fracture in the right hand. A claim petition was submitted for compensation. 3. Non-applicants including the present appellant did not choose to submit written statement and were proceeded ex parte. 4. Learned Claims Tribunal after recording the evidence granted an award for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for compensation. Non-applicants including the present appellant were found liable jointly and severally. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company has preferred appeal for its exoneration on the ground that no policy of insurance was in existence on the date of accident. 6. Ms. Ruprah, learned counsel drew attention to paragraph-10 of the impugned award and the copy of the cover note which is on the record of the Claims Tribunal. Accident occurred on 24.5.1996 whereas, according to the cover note, the policy of insurance was made effective on 13.6.1996 for a period of one year from 17:45 hours. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal placing reliance on the said cover note fastened the liability with the Insurance Company in a joint and several manner with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. It has been nowhere mentioned that the cover note dated 13.6.1996 was meant for covering the risk on 24.5.1996. In view of giving effect to the policy of insurance w.e.f. 13.6.1996, it is found that it is proved that the offending vehicle was insured with the present appellant on the date of accident. Under rule 220 of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 it is obligatory for the claimant to append the certificate regarding ownership and insurance particulars of the offending vehicle. Claimants are not found to have taken steps in accordance with the aforesaid rules. 8.This being so, moreso, in the light of cover note issued on 13.6.1996, it may be safely held that on the date of accident, the offending truck is not proved to have been insured with the appellant. Claimants are not found to have taken steps in accordance with the aforesaid rules. 8.This being so, moreso, in the light of cover note issued on 13.6.1996, it may be safely held that on the date of accident, the offending truck is not proved to have been insured with the appellant. It is true that the Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence to prove that the insurance policy mentioned in the cover note was effective during the preceding period.8. 8. This being so, it is found that the appellant Insurance Company is not liable to make payment of compensation. To this extent, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Impugned award is set aside, merely to the extent of fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. Appeals allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.