JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award, dated 26th August, 2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in MACP No. 16-K/05, titled as Sumna Devi and others versus Daljit Singh and another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,23,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the appellant-owner-insured came to be saddled with liability (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The claimants and the insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, the same has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The appellant-owner-insured has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling him with liability on the grounds taken in the memo of the appeal. 4. The claimants invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) and prayed for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,50,000/-, as per the breakups given in the claim petition. 5. The claimants have specifically averred in para 24 of the claim petition that there was some mechanical defect in the offending vehicle, but the appellant-owner-insured had not disclosed the same to the driver, deceased-Nand Lal, who became the victim of the accident because of the act of the appellant-owner-insured. 6. The respondents in the claim petition have resisted the same on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 7. Appellant-owner-insured has denied the said factum in para 5 of the preliminary objections and reply to para 24 of the claim petition. Virtually, he has taken a ground that the offending vehicle was taken away by an unidentified person without any permission and authority and the owner-insured has neither committed any negligence nor has authorized deceased-Nand Lal to drive the vehicle. It has specifically been averred in para 16 of the reply on merits that he had never engaged deceased-Nand Lal as a driver. 8. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 20th December, 2005: “1. It has specifically been averred in para 16 of the reply on merits that he had never engaged deceased-Nand Lal as a driver. 8. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 20th December, 2005: “1. Whether the deceased Nand Lal died in a motor accident caused on 8/11/2003 at 10 P.M. on account of rash and negligent driving of Maruti car bearing No. PB-08 N-6858 by its driver, at Dharamshala? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioner are entitled and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessed a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR 5. Whether the Maruti car No. PB-08 N-6858 was not insured at the relevant time with the respondent No. 2? OPR-2 6. Relief.” 9. The claimants have examined Shri Ishwar Dass as PW2, Shri Pyare Lal as PW3 and one of the claimants, namely Smt. Sumna Devi, herself appeared in the witness box as PW1. The appellant-owner-insured has examined HHC Tungal Singh as RW1, Smt. Sarvjeet Kaur as RW4 and has himself appeared in the witness box as RW2. The insurer examined Shri Kesar Dass, Manager, New India Assurance Company as RW3. Issue No. 1: 10. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimants have proved that deceased-Nand Lal was asked by the appellant-owner-insured to drive the vehicle without disclosing the factum of mechanical defect, rather, concealed the same. 11. The Tribunal has discussed the pleadings, evidence of the witnesses and held that the offending vehicle had some mechanical defect, deceased-Nand Lal, driver, was asked by the appellant-owner-insured for assistance, who provided assistance. Further held that he had not taken the vehicle forcibly and the plea taken by the appellant-owner-insured was not tenable. 12. I have gone through the evidence. The findings returned by the Tribunal are legally correct. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-owner-insurer argued that FIR No. 221 of 2003 was lodged by the appellant-owner-insured at the relevant point of time, which does disclose that the offending vehicle was taken unauthorizedly by some person and in support of his contention, he had examined HHC Tungal Singh. 13. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-owner-insurer argued that FIR No. 221 of 2003 was lodged by the appellant-owner-insured at the relevant point of time, which does disclose that the offending vehicle was taken unauthorizedly by some person and in support of his contention, he had examined HHC Tungal Singh. 13. The perusal of the statement of HHC Tungal Singh does disclose that he has stated that neither he has recorded the FIR nor has conducted the investigation. Thus, it can be safely held that the appellant-owner-insured has failed to prove before the Tribunal the contents of the FIR or the outcome of the FIR. 14. It is a fact that FIR can be treated as a prima facie proof for granting compensation and can also be treated as a claim petition in terms of Sections 158 (6) and 166 (4) of the MV Act, but that is only for the purpose of reaching to the victims of the motor vehicular accidents while keeping in view the aim and object of granting compensation, but cannot be treated as evidence in order to take a ground which the owner-insured has to prove as per the tests required. 15. The same question has arisen for consideration before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Islavath Chinnamma & Ors., reported in IV (2006) ACC 843, wherein it has been held that relevance of FIR is limited to see whether the accident and the injuries have taken place at all, but the same cannot be used as a conclusive proof of other aspects. It is apt to reproduce para 9 of the judgment herein: “[9] The only basis for the appellant, in urging that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving by the deceased, is, the FIR in Crime No. 193 of 1998, which was marked as Ex.A-1. It may be true that the informant, or the recording police official may have stated that the accident had occurred, on account of the negligent driving, on the part of the deceased. However, it must not be forgotten that the contents of FIR cannot be treated as conclusive proof of such aspects. The relevance of FIR in the claim petitions filed under the Act, is virtually limited to see whether the accident and the death or injuries have taken place, at all. However, it must not be forgotten that the contents of FIR cannot be treated as conclusive proof of such aspects. The relevance of FIR in the claim petitions filed under the Act, is virtually limited to see whether the accident and the death or injuries have taken place, at all. Beyond that, it cannot be taken use of, to affix or apportion the liability in causing the accident. Further, if the appellant intended that the contents of the FIR must be taken into account, even as per the general principles of evidence, it must have examined the person, who gave the first information report, or the official, who prepared the FIR. Without taking such steps, the appellant cannot insist that the contents of the FIR must be treated as conclusive proof.” (Emphasis added) 16. Applying the tests and keeping in view the purpose of granting compensation, it appears that the Tribunal has rightly made discussions and the findings, need no interference. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. 17. Before dealing with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to determine issues No. 3 to 5. Issue No. 3: 18. It was for the respondents in the claim petition to prove that the claim petition was not maintainable, have not led any evidence, thus, have failed to discharge the onus. As discussed hereinabove, even a police report can be treated as claim petition. 19. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-owner-insured argued that the claim petition was not maintainable before the Tribunal for the reason that the claimants are the legal representatives/heirs of the deceased driver, thus, at the best, if, at all, the claimants have proved that the deceased driver was asked by the appellant-owner-insured, the remedy was somewhere else. 20. The argument is misconceived for the reason that Section 167 of the MV Act provides an option to the claimants for compensation either under the MV Act or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “WC Act”). It is apt to reproduce Section 167 of the MV Act herein: “167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases. 20. The argument is misconceived for the reason that Section 167 of the MV Act provides an option to the claimants for compensation either under the MV Act or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “WC Act”). It is apt to reproduce Section 167 of the MV Act herein: “167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases. - Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both.” 21. Thus, the claimants have invoked Section 167 of the MV Act only with the purpose to get just and appropriate compensation and the claim petition was maintainable. Accordingly, issue No. 3 is decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. Issue No. 4: 22. It was for the respondents to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence, have not led any evidence to prove the said factum, thus, have failed to discharge the onus. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 4 are upheld. Issue No. 5: 23. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the offending vehicle was not insured at the relevant point of time, has led evidence by examining RW3, Shri Kesar Dass, that no insurance policy was issued in respect to the offending vehicle. 24. The Tribunal has held that the insurance cover note produced by the appellant-owner-insured is not sustainable, is not covering the risk and accordingly, saddled the appellant-owner-insured with the liability. 25. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-owner-insured vehemently argued that the cover note was valid and the risk was covered. The argument is misconceived for the following reasons: 26. Appellant-owner-insured has not led any evidence to prove the contents of the cover note. It was his duty to discharge the onus in view of the stand taken by him. However, I have perused the cover note, Ext. RW-1/ B, which was issued on 16th May, 2003. The argument is misconceived for the following reasons: 26. Appellant-owner-insured has not led any evidence to prove the contents of the cover note. It was his duty to discharge the onus in view of the stand taken by him. However, I have perused the cover note, Ext. RW-1/ B, which was issued on 16th May, 2003. There is a column in the cover note, which was to be filled up by the concerned parties, regarding period of the validity of the cover note, nothing has been recorded in the said column as to for which period it was valid. 27. Even otherwise, in terms of Rule 142 of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short “the Rules”), a cover note remains valid only for sixty days from the date of issuance. It is apt to reproduce Rule 142 of the Rules herein: “142. Cover notes. – (1) Every cover note issued by an authorised insurer shall be in Form 52. (2) A cover note referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be valid for a period of sixty days from the date of its issue and the insurer shall issued a policy of insurance before the date of expiry of the cover note.” 28. It would also be profitable to reproduce General Regulation 22 laid down by the Tariff Advisory Committee, herein: “GR 22. Cover Note. (i) Cover Notes insuring Motor Vehicles are to be issued only in Form 52 in terms of Rule 142 Sub rule (1) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 199 (Refer Section 6 of the India Motor Tariff). (ii) In terms of Rule 142, Sub-Rule (2) of Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, a Cover Note shall be valid for a period of sixty days from the date of its issue and the insurer shall issued a policy of insurance before the date of expiry of the Cover Note.” 29. Thus, if, at all, the argument of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-owner-insured is correct, even then, this cover note has lost its efficacy on 15th July, 2003, and no insurance policy or any other cover note has been placed on record. 30. Having said so, it can safely be said and held that the offending vehicle was not insured at the time of the accident and the Tribunal has rightly returned the findings on issue No. 5, are accordingly, upheld. 30. Having said so, it can safely be said and held that the offending vehicle was not insured at the time of the accident and the Tribunal has rightly returned the findings on issue No. 5, are accordingly, upheld. Issue No. 2: 31. The claimants have pleaded that deceased-Nand Lal was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The Tribunal has held that the claimants have not led any evidence, oral as well as documentary, to prove that deceased-Nand Lal was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Further held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month, is too meagre, cannot be said to be excessive in any way. Accordingly, the amount awarded is upheld. 32. Having glance of the above discussions, the impugned award merits to be upheld and the appeal is to be dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed alongwith all pending applications. 33. The awarded amount, if not already deposited, be deposited before the Registry of this Court within eight weeks. On deposition of the awarded amount, the same be released in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in their respective bank accounts. 34. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.