JUDGMENT : 1. In the case of injury caused as a result of the accident which occurred on 22.06.1998, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has recorded the finding under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act that the claimant has proved the permanent disability to the extent of 10% and accordingly, the owner of the vehicle, the driver and the Insurance Company are held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- including 'no fault liability' along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realization. This decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandrapur, rendered on 31.03.2004 in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 14 of 1999 is the subject matter of challenge by the Insurance Company in this appeal. 2. None appears for the respondents. I have heard Shri Dhanagare, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company, who says that the Insurance Company has produced on record Exh.63, which is the covernote in respect of the insurance of motor vehicle i.e. Trax bearing registration No. MH-20-A-5634, which was valid only for the period from 15.03.1996 to 14.03.1997. The accident occurred on 22.06.1998 and therefore, on two grounds, viz. (I) that the vehicle was not involved in the accident and (II) the insurance also was not valid and subsisting on the date of occurrence of the accident, the tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim. 3. The tribunal has recorded the finding that the vehicle involved in the accident was MH-33-A-135, a Bajaj Pickup Van, which was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and the insurance was valid for the period from 21.05.1998 to 20.05.1999. The Insurance Company has failed to establish that the said vehicle was not involved in the accident and that it was not insured on the date of occurrence of the accident on 22.06.1998. 4. The points for determination are as under; (I) Whether the vehicle i.e. Bajaj Pickup Van bearing Registration No.MH-33-A-135 was involved in the accident, which occurred on 22.06.1998? (II) Whether the vehicle was validly insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and such insurance was existing or in force on the date of occurrence of the accident? 5. In the claim petition, the claimant has stated that the vehicle involved in the accident was MH-33-A-135, a Bajaj Pickup Van. The first information report placed on record at Exh. (II) Whether the vehicle was validly insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and such insurance was existing or in force on the date of occurrence of the accident? 5. In the claim petition, the claimant has stated that the vehicle involved in the accident was MH-33-A-135, a Bajaj Pickup Van. The first information report placed on record at Exh. 49 shows the involvement of the said vehicle in an accident. In the registration particulars produced on record in the prescribed form at Exh.51 shows that the insurance of this vehicle was valid for the period from 21.05.1998 to 20.05.1999. Though this fact is denied in the written statement by the Insurance Company, there is nothing on record to suggest that this vehicle was not involved in the accident. It is not disputed that the owner of the said vehicle was joined as party respondent in the claim petition and there is nothing in the evidence of one Dashrath Gajbhiye, working as Branch Manager, at United India Insurance Company, Aurangabad, to suggest that such vehicle was not involved in the accident. The involvement of the said vehicle in the accident is amply established. 6. The Insurance Company has produced one another covernote at Exh.63 in respect of Tempo Trax bearing registration No. MH-20-A-5634. It was not the vehicle involved in the accident and therefore, the fact that the said vehicle was inured for the period from 15.03.1996 to 14.03.1997 is not at all of any consequence. The involvement of Bajaj Pickup Van bearing registration No. MH-33-A-135 is established and there is nothing on record to show that the said vehicle was not insured on the date of occurrence of the accident. The insurance in respect of the said vehicle on the date of accident was subsisting. The tribunal has recorded the reasons for rejecting the stand taken by the Insurance Company in para 8 of its judgment and I do not find any reason to take different view of the matter. 7. In the result, the first appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. If the Insurance Company has deposited any amount, the same shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the claimant if not already withdraw, alongwith the interest, if any, accrued thereon. If the claimant has withdrawn the amount upon furnishing security or giving undertaking, the same stands discharged.