Hon'ble BHATTACHARYA, Actg. C.J.—This appeal being First Appeal No.2262 of 1992 is heard along with another Appeal being First Appeal No.2263 of 1992, although the latter one is not appearing in the list by treating as on today's list as suggested by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant in both the appeals. There is no dispute that these two appeals arose out of a common order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal while disposing of two claim applications arising out of the same accident. 2. The following facts are not in dispute : On 6th November 1984, the two claimants were riding on a motor-cycle. A truck bearing registration No.GRW-1345 came from behind and dashed the motor-cycle and thereafter, a Tempo bearing registration No.GTF-4446 coming from opposite side dashed the said motor-cycle. As a result, both the riders of the motor-cycle suffered injuries. 3. As indicated earlier, both the injured persons preferred separate claim application before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mehsana bearing Motor Accident Claim Petition No.357 of 1985 and Motor Accident Claim Petition No.68 of 1986, claiming Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively against the owners and the insurers of both the vehicles. 4. In support of the claim application, both the claimants gave evidence and the respective Insurance Certificates were marked exhibit. Neither the Insurance Company nor the drivers nor the owners of these vehicles gave any evidence, controverting the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants. 5. Ultimately, the learned Tribunal below, by a common order impugned in these two appeals, disposed of those proceedings by awarding a sum of Rs.51,552/- and Rs.15,820/- respectively in favour of two claimants. The owners as well as Insurance Company were directed to pay such amount jointly and severally. The learned Tribunal below further held that the liability of negligence should be apportioned at 20:40:40 in the case of Motor-cycle No.GAE 500 by which the claimants were travelling, Truck No.GRW-1345 and Tempo No.GTF-4446 respectively. 6. Being aggrieved, the insurer of the Tempo has preferred these two appeals. 7. The learned Tribunal below further held that the liability of negligence should be apportioned at 20:40:40 in the case of Motor-cycle No.GAE 500 by which the claimants were travelling, Truck No.GRW-1345 and Tempo No.GTF-4446 respectively. 6. Being aggrieved, the insurer of the Tempo has preferred these two appeals. 7. Mr.Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Insurance Company at the first instance contended before me that the learned Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in ex-parte disposing of the proceedings without giving any opportunity of hearing to his client to give evidence for the purpose of showing that at the relevant point of time on 6th November 1984 the concerned Tempo was not covered by the valid insurance of his client. Mr.Nanavati prays for setting aside the award and remanding the matter back to the Tribunal to enable his client to prove that on the date of accident, there was no insurance. 8. After going through the materials on record, I find that the concerned Insurance Certificate has been marked as exhibit without objection at the instance of the claimants and the same was filed before the date of deposition of the claimants. In written statement filed by the Insurance Company, it was contended that although on the face of the insurance document it appears that the vehicle is covered, but there was a typographical mistake on the coverage and in fact, the insurance had lapsed three months after taking of such insurance on 23rd March 1984. 9. It appears from the records that when the claimants were examined and the documents were marked exhibit, even no suggestion was given to the claimants that the Insurance Certificate exhibited by them did not reflect the correct materials on record. If such suggestion was given at the relevant point of time, the claimants could produce further evidence showing that the assertion of the Insurance Company made in the written statement was not correct. In my opinion, the Insurance Company not having given even any suggestion that there is a typographical mistake regarding extent of insurance covering the date of accident, there was no scope of giving further evidence disputing the said exhibit which was marked without objection. 10. Moreover, I have gone through the application for adjournment filed by the Insurance Company. In my opinion, the Insurance Company not having given even any suggestion that there is a typographical mistake regarding extent of insurance covering the date of accident, there was no scope of giving further evidence disputing the said exhibit which was marked without objection. 10. Moreover, I have gone through the application for adjournment filed by the Insurance Company. It appears from the said application that no specific reason was assigned as to why the alleged witness was unable to appear on that day nor was the name of the alleged witness mentioned. Therefore, the learned Tribunal below rightly dismissed such frivolous application for adjournment particularly when no suggestion regarding genuineness of the certificate marked exhibit was put to the claimants in cross-examination. 10.1 I, therefore, find no substance in the aforesaid contention of Mr.Nanavati. 11. Mr.Nanavati next contended that in the facts of the present case, there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Tempo and it was the driver of the truck who had first struck the motor-cycle and he was wholly responsible. 12. In my opinion, the driver of the Tempo was the best witness, who could point out whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of claimants or whether he had any negligence for the accident. Inspite of specific allegation having been made against the driver of the Tempo neither the owner nor the driver of the Tempo having come forward to face cross-examination of the claimants, said plea is not tenable at the instance of the Insurance Company when the Insurance Company also did not take any leave to adduce the evidence or summon the owner or driver of the vehicle. In my opinion, the only plea available to the Insurance Company in this appeal is as regards the genuineness of the insurance or the coverage of the insurance at the relevant point of time. Such plea having been found to be not tenable, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Even the quantum of amount is quite reasonable and thus, these appeals are devoid of any substance. 13. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed in the facts and circumstances of the case. There will be, however, no order as to costs.