Judgment Both these applications are arising out of award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati on the principle of No Fault Liability in respect of a claim arising out of the motor vehicular accident occurred on 11.06.2009 involving a Tractor No.MH-27/L-2818 and Trolley MH-27/F-6402. One Pramod and Dinkar, both sons of Marotrao Rajnekar died in the accident. The learned Tribunal held that the vehicle was insured with appellant-original respondent no.3. Therefore, directed them to pay Rs.50,000/-towards compensation on the principle of No Fault Liability to the claimants. 2. Mr. Khadgi, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the vehicles involved in the accident were insured with the Oriental Insurance Company, which has not been arrayed as respondent. In that view of the matter, the learned tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in passing awards against the appellant. 3. The appellant has placed on record (at page 15) copy of the policy issued by them. It shows that the vehicle No.MH-27/L-2818 bearing Engine No.08786 and Chassis No.396735 owned by Santosh Kadu-original respondent nos.2 and respondent No.6 herein was insured with them covering the period from 08.06.2009 to 07.06.2010. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 11.06.2009. It is true that the document (at page no.14) is copy of the policy issued by the Oriental Insurance Company in respect of the same vehicle. This is for the period from 24.03.2009 to 23.03.2010. In fact, there should be no reason why the vehicle owner should obtain two insurance policies from two different companies for the overlapping period. The mistake appears to be for the reason that the owner of the tractor and trolley is required to obtain one policy for the tractor and the other for the trolley. This appears to be the intention of the owner in obtaining two policies but while obtaining the same, it seems that mistake had occurred and both policies came to be issued for the tractor. The fact remains that when the accident occurred, the tractor was insured with the appellant. In that view of the matter, the question of the appellant not satisfying the award based on the principle of No Fault Liability does not arise. However, the appellant is at liberty to raise the issue of fraud, allegedly committed by the owner of the vehicle in obtaining the second policy, during the course of the hearing of the main application. 4. However, the appellant is at liberty to raise the issue of fraud, allegedly committed by the owner of the vehicle in obtaining the second policy, during the course of the hearing of the main application. 4. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The amount deposited by the appellant with the Registry of this Court be transmitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati. On receipt of the amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the same, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.