JUDGMENT 1. Aggrieved by the award dated 29.01.2003 made in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 228 of 1989, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Judge) Dharmapuri, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 2. In an accident, which occurred on 18.9.1984, one Manickam, aged 45 years, died. His legal representatives, wife, 4 sons and 2 daughters, have claimed compensation of Rs. 75,0007/-. According to them, at the time of accident, the deceased was an Agriculturist and earned Rs. 800/- per month. New India Assurance Company Ltd., Bombay, appellant herein, resisting the claim, contending inter alia that the lorry bearing Registration No. MTG 5618, said to have been involved in the accident, was not insured with them. They also denied the manner of accident. Without prejudice to the above, they disputed the age, avocation and income of the deceased and the compensation claimed under various heads. 3. Before the Tribunal, wife of the deceased, first respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and P.W.2 is the eye-witness. Exhibit P-1 - FIR, Exhibit P-2 -Post-Mortem Certificate and Exhibit P3 - Motor Vehicles Inspector‘s Report have been marked on the side of the respondents/claimants. No oral or documentary evidence has been let in on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company. 4. The Tribunal, on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence let in on behalf of the respondents/claimants and considering the fact that the manner of accident had not been rebutted, fixed the negligence on the driver of the vehicle, bearing Registration No. MTG 5618, insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. Dealing with the contention of the Company that the abovesaid vehicle was not insured with them that neither the copy of the policy nor sufficient materials were furnished by the respondents/claimants and that therefore, they have failed to establish that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the Company and consequently, they cannot be fastened with the liability to pay compensation, the Claims Tribunal, on the basis of any entry in Exhibit P-3 - Motor Vehicles; Inspector‘s Report, noticing that the offending vehicle was insured upto 19.10.1984 and inasmuch as the accident had occurred on 18.9.1984, held that the appellant-Insurance Company cannot disown its liability to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased. 5. Having regard to the avocation pleaded, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 5. Having regard to the avocation pleaded, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 500/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal and living expenses and by applying ‘13‘ multiplier, applicable to the age group of 45 and 50 years, computed the dependency compensation at Rs. 52,000/-. In addition to the above, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,000/- towards Funeral Expenses, Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of love and affection for the Respondents 2 and 3. Altogether, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 63,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 6. Aggrieved by the finding, fastening liability on the appellant-Insurance Company, Mr. S. Ramalingam, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is the primary duty of the respondents/claimants, to establish that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, at the relevant point of time and when the respondents have failed to discharge their burden of establishing the said fact, the Company is not liable to pay any compensation. He also submitted that the Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion, by relying oh the Motor Vehicles Inspector‘s report, Exhibit A-3, wherein, he has simply noted that the vehicle bearing Registration No. MTG 5618 was insured with New India Assurance Company Ltd., without any further details, such as, the Branch, in which, the vehicle was stated to be insured, at the time of accident, the policy number, name and address of the Office, etc. 7. According to learned counsel, the Tribunal ought not to have given credence to the entry in the Motor Vehicles Inspector‘s Report and consequently, ought to have held that the respondents/claimants have failed to establish that the vehicle was covered under a valid policy. He also submitted that it would not be possible for the appellant-Insurance Company to search from the records of innumerable number of branches of the Company, throughout the country and that is why, the claimants/respondents, are required to furnish sufficient materials. In this context, he relied on decisions in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Purrai Kishore 2006 ACJ 1881 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudhakar (2007) 1 MLJ 234 . 8. In this context, he relied on decisions in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Purrai Kishore 2006 ACJ 1881 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudhakar (2007) 1 MLJ 234 . 8. As the challenge is limited only to the abovesaid issue, as to whether the respondents/claimants have discharged their burden of proof of Insurance Coverage and whether the materials furnished in the claim petition, coupled with the entry in Exhibit A-3, Motor Vehicles Inspector‘s Report, are sufficient to fasten the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company, this Court deems it fit to consider the same on the available materials. 9. It is the case of the respondents/claimants that a lorry bearing Registration No. MTG 5618, dashed against one Manickam, who was standing on the mud road and that he died, on account of the injuries. Column Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 16(a) of the claim petition deal with, (i) Registration No. , and the type of the vehicles involved in the accident, (ii) Name and address of the owner of the vehicle, (iii) Name and address of the insurer of the vehicle, and (iv) Name and address of the driver in-charge of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The details furnished in the claim petition, across the abovesaid columns are extracted hereunder: 14 Registration No. and the type of the vehicles involved in the accident MTG 5618 15 Name and address of the owner of the vehicle S.Pritham Singh, Prop: M/s. Lucky Bharat Carriage Pvt. Ltd., M.G. Road, Raipur. 16 Name and address of the insurer of the vehicle New India Assurance Co. Ltd., No. 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bombay 400 023. 16(a) Name and address of the driver in-charge of the vehicle at the time of the accident Khamel Singh, Son of Bacthather Singh, No. 85, Pathi Marru, Bishal Jighorranu, Ludhaiana. 10. From the above, it could be seen that the vehicle number, owner‘s name and the specific address of the insurer, are given. According to the respondents/claimants, the offending vehicle, bearing Registration No. MTG 5618, was insured in the office of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., situated at No. 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bombay 400 023. 10. From the above, it could be seen that the vehicle number, owner‘s name and the specific address of the insurer, are given. According to the respondents/claimants, the offending vehicle, bearing Registration No. MTG 5618, was insured in the office of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., situated at No. 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bombay 400 023. Perusal of Form AIR, Inspection Report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector, shows that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Karimangalam Police Station, has requested the Motor Vehicles Inspector to inspect the vehicle and the requisition has been received on 19.9.1984, at 4.00 p.m. The vehicle has been produced on 20.9.1984 at 11.00 a.m. 11. The Motor Vehicles Inspector, in his report, has stated that the vehicle involved in the accident was a Leyland Goods Vehicle, bearing Registration No. MTG 5618, owned by Thiru. S. Pretam Singh, Nagpur. Driving licence and Fitness Certificate were valid upto 5.3.1985 and 17.10.1985 respectively. Permit was valid upto 20.9.1984. Insofar as Column No. 10, date of expiry of insurance certificate, name and address of the company, which issued the policy in respect of the vehicle, is concerned, the Motor Vehicles Inspector, in his report, Exhibit P-3, has specifically noted that the insurance was valid upto 19.10.1984 and that the vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Admittedly, the Motor Vehicles Inspector, has not noted the particular branch, the vehicle was insured. The above particulars are not disputed. Now let me consider the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. 12. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Purrai Kishore (supra), the injured through his guardian, filed a claim for compensation against the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle. The company disputed the liability to pay compensation on the ground that it is for the claimant to establish that the offending vehicle was involved with them, on the date of accident. Both the parties have let in oral and documentary evidence. Rejecting the evidence of R.W.1, let in on behalf of the Company, the Tribunal held that the Company has failed to establish that the offending vehicle was not insured, on the date of accident and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the injured. Both the parties have let in oral and documentary evidence. Rejecting the evidence of R.W.1, let in on behalf of the Company, the Tribunal held that the Company has failed to establish that the offending vehicle was not insured, on the date of accident and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the injured. On appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, before the High Court, the main contention of the Insurance Company was that since no insurance particulars were given in the claim form, the Claims Tribunal has erred in holding that the burden of proof of insurance is on the Insurance Company and fastened the liability. While addressing the abovesaid issue, on the facts and circumstances of the case, a learned single Judge of the Andra Pradesh High Court, as follows: “it is well-known that burden to establish that the offending vehicle was insured with a particular insurance company is on the claimant or the owner of the offending vehicle. As per Section 151 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the owner has the duty to disclose the name of the insurer when called upon to do so. Particulars of the insurance of the offending vehicle are not mentioned in the claim petition. In Column No. 17 of the claim petition, which relates to the name and address of the insurer, the name of the appellant is mentioned without any particulars of insurance. ..............Merely because the claimant chooses to implead a particular insurance company as the insurer of the offending vehicle, it, cannot be presumed that the offending vehicle was insured with that insurance company. Even if the appellant failed to adduce any evidence in a case like this no award could be passed against the appellant because the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant does not establish that offending vehicle was insured with the appellant by the date of accident.” 13. In yet another decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudhakar-Minor (supra), there were no details in the claim petition before the Tribunal about the vehicle, policy number, date and period of policy. In the claim petition, at Column No. 17, it was stated that a legal notice, dated 16.12.1995 was issued to the insurer, mentioning the vehicle number and also the policy number, but no reply was received. In the claim petition, at Column No. 17, it was stated that a legal notice, dated 16.12.1995 was issued to the insurer, mentioning the vehicle number and also the policy number, but no reply was received. But, the said notice has not been produced before the Tribunal. The owner of the vehicle also remained ex parte. However, the Tribunal fastened the liability on the Company to pay compensation. When the correctness of the said award was tested in the appeal preferred by the Company before this Court, on the grounds inter alia, that when a specific plea was taken by the insurer that the offending vehicle was not insured with the Insurance Company, the claimant should have taken necessary steps to produce the policy number of the vehicle and in the absence of any policy details, it is not possible for the insurer to produce the policy before the Tribunal and prove the negative that there was no insurance, this Court at Paragraph 8, held as follows: “As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, unless the policy details are furnished to the insurer by the claimant, it is impossible for the insurer to produce the policy before the Tribunal. In this case, the second respondent/the owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. The first respondent herein has also not adduced any evidence to show that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant. The claimant has also not produced any evidence to show that the Branch Office of the appellant was located at the relevant point of time at Karaikkal. The Tribunal has erred in fastening the burden on the insurer to prove a negative thing, which in the considered view of this Court, is erroneous. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the finding of the Tribunal that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant herein is erroneous and has to be set aside and accordingly, set aside.” 14. Though the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the abovesaid decisions to avoid payment of compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased on the ground that they have not furnished the relevant details of the insurance policy, it is worthwhile to consider a Division Bench decision of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Though the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the abovesaid decisions to avoid payment of compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased on the ground that they have not furnished the relevant details of the insurance policy, it is worthwhile to consider a Division Bench decision of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Govindaswamy and Others 2003 (2) LW 116 : LNIND 2002 Mad 1404, which apparently was not placed before the learned single Judge in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudhakar (supra). In the reported case, in the claim petition, husband of one Sathiavani, died. Resisting the claim, the Insurance Company filed a counter affidavit, stating that the vehicle alleged to have involved in the accident, was not insured with them and therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased. During cross-examination of P.W.1 by the appellant-Insurance Company, the witness was posed with a question, as to whether the vehicle was insured with them, the answer was that, he did not know about that. In the reported case, no witness was examined on the side of the Insurance Company to prove that the vehicle was not insured with them. A judgment of the Orissa High Court in Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramakrishna Das 1993 ACJ 663 and another judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Anga Chinni Babu 1992 ACJ 222, have been pressed into service by the appellant-Insurance Company therein, in support of the contention that the burden of proof can never be shifted to the Company. The Division Bench of Our High Court, upon perusal of the details in the claim petition, found that the number of the car and the Branch of the Insurance Company have been specifically mentioned. Rejecting the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and considering the plight of the poor litigants, who had approached the Tribunal, at Paragraph 5, held as follows: “5. With due respect to the learned Judges, we are unable to agree with the decisions of the High Courts of Orissa and Andhra Pradesh. It is impossible for the poor litigants who come before the Tribunal to ascertain the insurance particulars independently. At the most, they can only give the car number and the company in which it was insured. With due respect to the learned Judges, we are unable to agree with the decisions of the High Courts of Orissa and Andhra Pradesh. It is impossible for the poor litigants who come before the Tribunal to ascertain the insurance particulars independently. At the most, they can only give the car number and the company in which it was insured. In this case, the branch office in which the vehicle has been insured has also been specifically mentioned and the registration number of the car has also been mentioned. With these particulars, it is very easy for the Insurance Company to ascertain whether the car has been registered in their Branch Office or any other Region. In these days where the communication has so advanced, we are of the view that it is the Insurance company which could have easily ascertained this fact. Further, merely suggesting to a witness that the vehicle has not been insured is not sufficient. As already pointed out, the 4th respondent has failed to discharge its onus to prove by adducing evidence and to deny that the vehicle has not been insured with the fourth respondent. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusion of the Tribunal that the award of compensation has to be shared equally by the two Insurance Companies.” 15. Now, reverting back to the case on hand, as stated supra, the poor respondents/claimants, who have lost their breadwinner in the claim petition, have categorically furnished the vehicle number as MTG 5618; name and address of the owner of the vehicle, as “S. Pritham Singh, Prop: Lucky Bharat Carriage Pvt. Ltd., M.G. Road, Raipur”; and name and address of the insurer of the vehicle, as “New India Assurance Co. Ltd., No. 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bombay 400 023”. As rightly pointed out by the Hon‘ble Division Bench of this Court, no witness has been examined on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company to rebut the same. No steps have also been taken by the Company to ascertain from the Insurance Company situated at No. 87, Mahatma Gandhi‘ Road, Bombay 400 023, to find out, as to whether the abovesaid offending vehicle was covered by an Insurance Policy, at the time of accident. No steps have also been taken by the Company to ascertain from the Insurance Company situated at No. 87, Mahatma Gandhi‘ Road, Bombay 400 023, to find out, as to whether the abovesaid offending vehicle was covered by an Insurance Policy, at the time of accident. Atleast when the respondents/claimants have produced Exhibit P-3 - Motor Vehicles Inspector‘s Report, wherein, the Inspector has noted down the date of expiry of the insurance certificate as “19.10.1984” and the name of the company, which issued the certificate, as “New India Insurance Co. Ltd.”. The appellant-Insurance Company could have taken steps to ascertain from the Office at No. 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bombay 400 023, about the insurance particulars with the registration number of the offending vehicle. But, the appellant-Company has failed to verify the same and has shifted the burden on the poor litigants. 16. In the abovesaid circumstances, the contention of the appellant-Insurance Company that the respondents/claimants have failed to discharge their burden of proving the insurance of the vehicle, involved in the accident, is nothing but shirking their responsibility to ascertain the insurance particulars, to avoid payment of compensation to the poor respondents/claimants. In the light of the categorical pronouncements by the Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudhakar-Minor (supra), the decisions to the contra relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. There is no reason to reject the contents in Exhibit P-3 - Motor Vehicles Inspector‘s Report, in which, the Motor Vehicles Inspector, probably, by inadvertence, has omitted to mention the Insurance particulars and the Branch Office. 17. Yet another aspect to be considered is that on the requisition of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Karimangalam Police Station, the offending vehicle has been produced before the Motor Vehicles Inspector on 20.9.1984 at 11.00 a.m. As per the Motor Vehicles Act, the vehicle and the documents pertaining to the same, have to be produced by the owner of the vehicle or the person in charge of the vehicle, at the time of accident. The provisions of the Act, do not contemplate the presence of the injured or the legal representatives of the deceased, at the time of accident. The provisions of the Act, do not contemplate the presence of the injured or the legal representatives of the deceased, at the time of accident. Therefore, even if there was any omission on the part of the Motor Vehicles Inspector in not properly recording the details of the insurer, poor litigants should not be made to suffer, when the mighty Insurance Company has all machineries to ascertain the Insurance particulars, as per the details furnished in the claim petition. 18. The contention of the appellant-Company in this appeal, does not merit consideration, considering the beneficial nature of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the light of the abovesaid Division Bench judgment and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there is no manifest illegality committed by the claims Tribunal, warranting interference. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount, if not already deposited, with proportionate accrued interest and costs, to the credit of M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 228 of 1989, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Judge) Dharmapuri, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents/claimants are permitted to withdraw the same, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. Appeal dismissed.