JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Since, all the above-titled six appeals challenge the different judgments rendered on a common date 24.8.2009 by the Tribunal pertaining to the same accident; albeit the claimants are different but the vehicle owner and insurer are also the same, so, these are being adjudicated by this Court all together by this single verdict. 2. The accident occurred on 9.4.2008 at 11:40 A.M. when the Utility vehicle bearing No.UA07-J-4231 (goods carriage) while travelling in the hilly roads fell down deep in the Tons river taking the toll of life of 3 passengers therein, namely, Swaraj, Maru and Ran Singh besides causing damage to the vehicle itself. The dependents of deceased filed different petitions before the Tribunal which were decreed for different awards as per their merits but learned Tribunal exclusively fastened the liability upon the insurance company to make payment only up to the extent of Rs.80,000/- in each award immediately and rest of the amount, though was payable by the insurance company, but since the liability was fastened upon owner of the vehicle, hence recoverable rights were extended to the insurer from such owner. 3. The accident and death of the afore-named persons has not been disputed. Herein, three appeals have been preferred by the insurance company challenging the award, asking the insurer to make whole payment of all the awards but with the recoverable rights. 4. It has been urged by learned counsel for the insurer that as per the insurance policy, only -5- passengers were covered to be compensated to the extent of Rs.80,000/- each wherefor the total premium of Rs.240/- was charged from the vehicle owner. Therefore, it was argued that the insurer is not liable to pay the balance amount wherefor the liability must go to the owner of the vehicle. 5. Per contra, learned counsel on behalf of the vehicle owner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the cover note issued by the authorized insurer/duly constituted attorney on behalf of the insurance company under his seal and signature, which was issued on 5.10.2007 i.e. on the date when the Cheque was received by such authorized insurer. This document goes to show that it was a comprehensive policy for 5+1=6 passengers. However, it nowhere discloses (unlike the Policy) that the risk that too of -5- passengers is covered only to the extent of Rs.80,000/- each. This document goes to show that it was a comprehensive policy for 5+1=6 passengers. However, it nowhere discloses (unlike the Policy) that the risk that too of -5- passengers is covered only to the extent of Rs.80,000/- each. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the cover note, which was issued on 5.10.2007 at the time of receiving the cheque by a person, who was not less than an authorized insurer/duly constituted attorney on behalf of the insurance company, is more responsive than the ‘Policy’ issued by the concerned persons on behalf of the Company on 23.10.2007 while sitting in the office based at Lucknow. Therefore, it is ample clear that the owner of the vehicle, while issuing the cheque and receiving the cover note, was kept in quite dark by the authorized agent of the company wherefor the blame cannot be attached to the owner but to the company and its so-called competent persons appointing such reckless agents. 6. In light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the liability to pay the compensation cannot be fastened on the vehicle owner, and rather it should be shifted on the insurance company viz. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals preferred by the Insurance Company (AO Nos.422/09, 423/2009 and 424/2009) are dismissed. 8. At the same time, the appeals preferred by the vehicle owner –Roop Singh Chauhan (A.O. Nos.324/2009, 326/2009 and 327/2009) are allowed. The liability to make payment of the compensation is shifted from the vehicle owner to the insurance company. 9. The insurance company is, accordingly, directed to satisfy the payment of each and every award, which is impugned in these appeals, to the respective claimants. 10. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. 11. The amount of statutory deposit, if lying in this Court in any of the above-titled appeals, shall be remitted to the concerned Tribunal for being paid to the respective claimants. 12. Let a copy of this judgment along with the LCR be transmitted to the Court below.