Order Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal has been filed against the Award dated 18.7.2008 passed by Sri Indra Deo Mishra, learned 6th Addl. District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicles Accident Claim Tribunal, Dhanbad in Title (MV) Suit No. 101/97, whereby the claim of the claimants was accepted by the Tribunal. However, the Insurance Company was exonerated and it was held that it is the owner of the vehicle who is liable to make compensation to the claimants. Prior to the present appeal which is filed by the owner of the vehicle to challenge the Award, another appeal was filed by the Insurance Company in which the Tribunal held the Insurance Company liable. While setting aside the order of the Tribunal this Court has observed, in MA No. 49 of 2004, as under:- "Admittedly the serious dispute involved in the case was whether the cover note issued on 23.6.97, by making interpolation the date was changed as 22.6.97. If this allegation of interpolation is proved then certainly Insurance Company shall have no liability for payment of compensation. We are of the view that it is a fit case where the matter should be remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the issue as to whether there exists interpolation in the cover note or not and thereafter decide the claim case afresh. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the case afresh by framing a specific issue and• giving finding on that issue as to whether there appears interpolation in the cover note (Ext.-A-1 )." 3. The present decision of the Tribunal has come after the decision of appeal at the instance of the Insurance Company in which the aforesaid has been observed. 4. The point urged by the appellant before us is that the Insurance Company has unequivocally admitted in the written statement that they had insured the vehicle but it was retracted subsequently. The additional written statement filed in this regard was though accepted by the Tribunal but this Court in revision, being C.R. No. 176 of 2003, reversed the said order. 5. Be that as it may, the Division Bench has held that an issue has to be framed in this regard. The additional written statement filed in this regard was though accepted by the Tribunal but this Court in revision, being C.R. No. 176 of 2003, reversed the said order. 5. Be that as it may, the Division Bench has held that an issue has to be framed in this regard. As directed by the Division Bench of this Court and quoted hereinabove, once an issue has been framed on the issue as to whether there exists interpolation in the insurance cover note or not the Tribunal will decide the claim case afresh. In that view of the matter the Tribunal has decided the case afresh. 6. We find from the record that insurance cover, which is the basis of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, though was allegedly issued on 21.6.1997, the insurance expired on 22.6.1997. The document produced by the appellant is Exhibit-A/1. We have examined the document. There is interpolation in the dates. It starts from 23.6.1997 to 22.6.1997 to 21.6.1997. We find from a check available with us that in the insurance cover which makes the insurance for one year, the date of expiry is given as 22.6.98. Then obviously the date of issuance of the Insurance cover could be presumed to be on 23.6.1997. The inference is further supportable from the fact that the receipt of the money of the insurance premium is dated 23.6.97 which is Exhibit-A/4. Once when it is the established case that this document is admitted with objection but no rebuttal is available regarding this document on record or any evidence that the receipt of money was not issued on 23.6.1997, in our considered opinion it establishes that the money was paid on 23.6.1997. This corroborates the inference that the insurance cover was issued on 23.6.1997. 7. Further, the carbon copy of the insurance policy as on record shows that the insurance was from 23.6.1997 and this again fortifies the inference that the insurance cover was prepared on 23.6.1997. 8. The Insurance cover note, which is the basis of the argument of the learned counsel f:)r the appellant, has signature of the authorised insurer Paul Ekka. This man has appeared in the Witness Box and he has been cross-examined and he has said that the interpolation which is there has not been made by him. . 9. 8. The Insurance cover note, which is the basis of the argument of the learned counsel f:)r the appellant, has signature of the authorised insurer Paul Ekka. This man has appeared in the Witness Box and he has been cross-examined and he has said that the interpolation which is there has not been made by him. . 9. He is the person who has drawn up this insurance cover and the corrections which form the basis of the claim of the appellant have been denied by him. The appellants had not led any evidence to the effect that Paul Ekka is not the person who had drawn up this insurance cover. If these corrections have not been made by this person then no other person can be supposed to be the person who is authorised to make these corrections. 10. Be that as it may, this would fall in the category of interpolation and in, view of this fact the claim of the appellants stand on a document which has a character of being interpolated. There is no other evidence which controverts the case of the respondent-Insurance Company that the insurance cover was issued on 23.6.1997. This is also in the background that the accident had taken place on 22.6.1997 and there is a likelihood that on that date some foul might have been played and on that account the insurance cover was purchased and correction might have been done. These all are only presumptive in character and we will not hazard a guess on that account. 11. Be that as it may, the insurance cover note, the only piece of paper which is the basis of the claim of the appellant, is subject to doubt. 12. Therefore, we don't find that the findings of the Motor Vehicles Accident Tribunal is liable to be interfered. We see no reason to disturb it and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 13. The amount deposited by the appellant will be transmitted to the Trial Court i.e. the Tribunal for being disbursed to the claimants in accordance with law.