ORDER : Chandrashekhar, J. Aggrieved by order dated 31.05.2004 in M.V. Claim Case No. 11 of 1997 whereby, the defence taken by the Insurance Company was rejected and it has been made liable to pay compensation, the present Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the xerox copy of the cover note filed by the claimant was not a genuine document and the said document was denied by the Insurance Company. It is contended that unless the claimant establishes that the vehicle was insured, liability cannot be fastened on the Insurance Company. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that except, stating that the cover note was a forged document, no evidence was produced by the Insurance Company and therefore, the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal has rightly directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation. 5. The claimant pleaded that the deceased persons boarded the bus bearing no. BR-IP-2932 on 08.11.1996 at village-Chandwa. The bus met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. In the accident three persons died and several others sustained injury. A criminal case being Chandwa P.S. Case No. 50 of 1996 u/s 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC was registered on 08.11.1996. The claimant produced death certificate and the cover note of the vehicle showing insurance by United India Insurance Company. The appellant took a plea that the cover note filed by the claimant has been found a forged and fabricated document. 6. The owner and the driver of the vehicle did not appear before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the effective date of commencement of the insurance was between the period 24.05.1996 to 23.05.1997 which covered the date of accident. The date of accident and the factum of death have not been disputed. The Tribunal recorded a finding that no proof has been produced by the Insurance Company and it did not even lodge a criminal case alleging that the insurance document is a forged one. 7. From perusal of the impugned order dated 31.05.2004 and the materials brought on record, it is apparent that the Insurance Company did not produce any document to establish that the insurance document was forged. 7. From perusal of the impugned order dated 31.05.2004 and the materials brought on record, it is apparent that the Insurance Company did not produce any document to establish that the insurance document was forged. Neither the register for the relevant period of the issuing branch was produced nor the cover note book of 23.05.1997 was produced by the Insurance Company to prove that the cover note produced by the claimant was not issued by the Insurance Company. Any person from the concerned branch from where the cover note was allegedly issued, was not examined by the Insurance Company. The plea taken by the Insurance Company in the objection petition has remained mere allegation. Without proof in support of the allegations, the same cannot be found proved. 8. Considering the object under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1998 and the facts noticed herein above, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and accordingly, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. 9. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Insurance Company may be permitted to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle. To this prayer, all that can be said is that the Insurance Company, if permissible in law, can proceed against the owner of the vehicle. 10. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the Insurance Company vide Challan No. J-122 dated 13.12.2004 shall be refunded to the Insurance Company subject to production of proof of payment of compensation to the claimants as ordered vide order dated 31.05.2004. 11. Interim order dated 20.07.2006 stands vacated. 12. A copy of the order be transmitted to the Tribunal through FAX, forthwith. Ordered accordingly.