JUDGMENT R.K. Deshpande, J. 1. This appeal preferred by the Insurance Company challenges the Award dated 12-7-2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Wardha, in M.A.C.P. No. 48 of 2008, only to the extent it holds the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation and the interest along with the owner and Driver of the vehicle. It was a specific stand taken by the Insurance Company that the accident in question occurred on 24-1-2008 whereas the offending vehicle i.e. Auto rickshaw bearing registration No. MH32/TC47 was insured for the first time on 28-1-2008, which was valid up to 28-1-2009 and as such the vehicle in question was not insured on the date of accident. The Tribunal has recorded a specific finding that the cover note at Exh. 68 was issued on 23-1-2008 from the book at Exh. 83, which was issued subsequently on 28-3-2008 and hence it cannot be relied upon. It is the finding recorded that the cover note is totally manipulated and a policy at Exh. 81 issued on 28-1-2008 for the first time from 29-1-2008 valid upto 28-1-2009. 2. The Tribunal, however, proceeds to reject the defence raised by the Insurance Company solely on the ground that no evidence is adduced by the Insurance Company to show that the premium was in fact received by the Insurance Company on 28-1-2008 and not on 23-1-2008. The inference is that, though the premium was paid on 23-1-2008, the policy was issued on 28-1-2008 and hence the Insurance Company is held liable. 3. The point for determination in the present case on the basis of the aforesaid factual position is as under: "Whether the burden of proof to establish that the policy was issued on 28-1-2008 in response to the premium paid on 23-1-2008, was on the appellant - Insurance Company or on the owner of the offending vehicle?" 4. Sections 102 and 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, are attracted in the present case and the same are reproduced below: "102. On whom burden of proof lies.--The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. 103. Sections 102 and 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, are attracted in the present case and the same are reproduced below: "102. On whom burden of proof lies.--The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. 103. Burden of proof as to particular fact.--The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person." In terms of section 102, the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. In terms of section 103, the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. 5. In the present case, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that Exh. 68, which is a cover note dated 23-1-2008, is a manipulated document and it has to be ignored. The appellant - Insurance Company has produced on record the policy at Exh. 81 issued on 28-1-2008 valid for the period from 29-1-2008 to 28-1-2009 and has discharged its burden to prove that the offending vehicle was not insured on the date of accident i.e. on 24-1-2008. It is the owner of the vehicle who would fail, if no evidence is led by the either side to establish that the premium was in fact paid on 23-1-2008 in response to which the policy was issued on 28-1-2008 and therefore, he is not at fault. It is the owner of the vehicle who wanted the Court to believe the existence of the such facts. If he succeeds in proving such facts, then the liability of the Insurance Company would be attracted, in the absence of rebuttal. 6. In the present case, the owner has neither filed written statement nor has participated in the proceedings nor has adduced any evidence in support of a plea that the premium was paid on 23-1-2008 in response to which the policy was issued on 28-1-2008. 6. In the present case, the owner has neither filed written statement nor has participated in the proceedings nor has adduced any evidence in support of a plea that the premium was paid on 23-1-2008 in response to which the policy was issued on 28-1-2008. The owner has failed to discharge his burden and hence the Insurance Company cannot be held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation along with the owner and Driver of the vehicle. The Tribunal has, therefore, committed an error in holding that the Insurance Company is liable for payment of compensation. The award to that extent cannot, therefore, be sustained. In the result, the First Appeal is allowed. The Award dated 12-7-2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Wardha, in M.A.C.P. No. 48 of 2008, only to the extent it holds the appellant - Insurance Company liable to pay compensation is quashed and set aside. The Insurance Company has deposited the entire decretal amount in this Court, hence, the appellant - Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the same along with interest, if any, accrued thereon. No order as to costs.