JUDGMENT 1) Heard. Admit. Heard finally. These two appeals are pending for decision since long at admission stage. 2) The appellant/insurance company has questioned its liability to indemnify the claimants (Respondents in appeal) in vehicular accident occurred on 19.08.2000. 3) Mr. Chapalgaonkar, learned Counsel for the claimant in appeal No.287/2007 has raised a basic objection as to maintainability of the appeal, as the appeal is dismissed against owner and driver of the vehicle. 4) Mr. Totla, learned Counsel for insurance company says, the very stand and root in the matter is about fraud played on insurance company by owner of the vehicle. There is no contractual obligation against the appellant/insurance company with owner of the vehicle and dismissal of appeal will not make any adverse impact on assertions of appellant to stake claim against the claimants. Though the Award under challenge refers joint and several liability, however, since there was basic flaw in the course of indemnification as it did not cover a contract based on cover note, the stand raised by Mr. Totla that dismissal of the appeal, will not be blow to appeal, needs to be accepted. 5) Facts relevant for the purpose of decision of the appeals are, In Jeep No. MH-20E/9221, Narayan and Ganesh were passengers with others. Said jeep met with an accident. Narayan suffered injuries whereas Ganesh succumbed. Consequently, respective claims by Narayan and dependents of Ganesh were preferred before learned Member of MACT, Beed being MACP No. 112/2001 by Narayan and MACP No.249/2000 by parents of the deceased viz. Sampat and Subhadrabai. 6) The accident; death; injury; age; entitlement of the claimants is not argued by both the learned Counsel. Hence, these aspects are not dissected for the purpose of merits in the appeals. 7) A short point, that has been posed and addressed by appellant/insurance company is, it is a brazen case of fraud played by owner of the jeep on the insurance company to ensure free passage of respective claims against the insurance company. 8) Evidence of Development Officer Shri Rajesh Baheti of Insurance company was led, who did not dispute issuance of Cover note dated 8.8.2000 being Cover note No.007058. 8) Evidence of Development Officer Shri Rajesh Baheti of Insurance company was led, who did not dispute issuance of Cover note dated 8.8.2000 being Cover note No.007058. However, since owner Laxman had no money with him and asked the witness to wait till his person comes with money and after sufficient time, since the amount against the Cover note was not paid, Cover note was cancelled on 8.8.2000. 9) Evidence also emerge that there was another cover note No.7834 allegedly purchased from same insurance company covering the period w.e.f. 19.8.2000 to 18.8.2001. Basically, there was no reason for owner of the vehicle to have other cover note for virtually same period from United India, the appellant. This speaks malice on the part of owner of the vehicle. It also endorse that there was no valid cover note No.7058. The fraud does not stop here. Owner had audacity to enter into a contract of insurance cover with Oriental Insurance Company and had a valid policy from such insurance company, covering the period of accident, which is reflected in the RTO registration. It cannot be disputed owing to its details emerging with RTO. There is nothing to controvert such policy. 10) Conduct of said owner of the vehicle speaks volume. Fraud unravels everything. A litigant with aggravated behaviour to play with system need not be heard in equitable reliefs. It vitiates contract and consequently, since there was no contract to indemnify concluded between the appellant insurance company, based on cover note, there could not be fastening of liability in respect of either cover note No.007058 dated 8.8.2000 or cover note No. 7834 dated 19.8.2000. 11) Another facet in the matter is, without any legal recourse, learned Member of the Tribunal exhibited Photostat copy of cover note, as Exhibit-32. No notice, to produce either original or certified copy, was issued. This course adopted by the learned Member is, certainly against the established procedure under the law and calls for criticism. 12) Legal position again is skipped by the learned Member as he did not bother to refer Section 64-VB of Insurance Act; and also Section 147(3) and (4) of the MV Act. This course adopted by the learned Member is, certainly against the established procedure under the law and calls for criticism. 12) Legal position again is skipped by the learned Member as he did not bother to refer Section 64-VB of Insurance Act; and also Section 147(3) and (4) of the MV Act. It was imperative for the learned Member and also the claimants to establish either, through owner of the vehicle, who was already party to the proceeding or summoning him as a witness that cover note though was a proposal, has culminated into a contract. No such exercise was ever carried. 13) The judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of AIR 2000 SC 1082 – New India Assurance Company Ltd Vs. Rula and ors., relied on before the learned Member of the Tribunal could not have been so done. A cheque was issued as against issuance of insurance policy and the cheque was dishonoured. The policy was noticed was in subsistence on the date of accident though later cancelled, and consequently, effect of Section 64 VB could not have been coined by the insurance company. It was a case of third party. It was held, not a concern of third party in the matter of premium, whether the premium has been paid or not. 14) In the result, the Appeals are allowed qua the appellant/insurance company. The claimants to proceed against other respondents. No costs. Statutory deposit, if any, be reimbursed to the appellant with accrued interest. The appellant/insurance company is at liberty to recover the amount from owner of the jeep. There shall be charge of appellant with interest @ 9% p.a. on the jeep and also on immovable properties of owner of the vehicle. The amounts lying in Fixed Deposit, if any, be paid over to the appellant with accrued interest. Civil Applications, if any, disposed of.