Judgment and Order : 1. Heard Mr. Kohinoor N Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. Despite due notice, none appears for the respondents No.2-4. 2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Insurer of the offending vehicle, the oil tanker bearing No.AS-05/A/0897, on the solitary ground that at the time of accident that occurred on 02.03.2009, the said oil tanker was not under valid insurance coverage by the appellant. The substantive facts are not in dispute. On 02.03.2009 when a mini truck bearing No.AS-01S/2511 having been driven by Samrat Deb Barman [since deceased] was proceeding towards Jorhat from Guwahati, the oil tanker which was coming from the opposite direction with uncontrollable speed and in the rash and negligent manner, dashed the said vehicle. As a result, one Samrat Deb Barman who was the assistant driver in the said mini truck, sustained fatal injury. When he was shifted to the Nagaon B.P. hospital in a precarious condition, he was admitted there for life saving treatment but unfortunately on 03.03.2009 on the following day of the accident, at about 11.00 a.m., he succumbed to his injuries. At the time of the accident the deceased was aged 25(twenty five) years and he used to earn Rs. 6,000/- per month. The claimant, the mother of the deceased filed the claim-petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00000/-. After recording the evidence and on purported assessment, a sum of Rs.3,32,600/- with 6% interest p.a. from the day of filing the claim-petition i.e. 04.06.2009 till the day of payment has been awarded by the tribunal vide the judgment and award dated 28.09.2012 delivered in T.S. (MAC) 245 of 2009. The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal by the said insurer since in the said judgment it has been observed as under: “It now requires decision as to who shall be liable to pay the compensation. From the certified copy of seizure list it appears that the investigating officer seized the certificate of insurance policy of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited which was valid upto 05.02.2010. From the certified copy of seizure list it appears that the investigating officer seized the certificate of insurance policy of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited which was valid upto 05.02.2010. So it is clear from the aforesaid seizure list that on the date of accident, i.e., on 02.03.2009 the vehicle bearing No.AS-05A/0897 (Oil Tanker) was insured with the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited. From the said seizure list it also appears that the investigating officer also seized the driving licence No.63502/MKG in the name of Mahibul Haque and it was valid upto 25.06.2010. So, considering all aspects it is held that the opposite party No.4, i.e., Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited is liable to make payment of compensation to the petitioner. Accordingly, this issue is decided.” 3. Mr. Kohinoor N Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the basis of such finding is a seizure list for inference on the liability of payment. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has further pointed out that in terms of the order dated 21.09.2016 of this court, the appellant has filed a supplementary affidavit on 05.01.2017 enclosing the report in respect of the insurance policy in respect of the said oil tanker qua its owner, the respondent No.3 herein. From the search, it has clearly revealed that at the relevant time i.e. on the date of accident, the said oil tanker was not covered by any valid policy issued by the appellant. In the paras-2, 3 and 4 of the said affidavit, the following has been asserted by the appellant: “2. That save what are matters of records and what are specifically denied in our appeal memo & written statement regarding the insurance Policy, I state that, we upon receipt of this order dated 21/09/2016 passed by this Hon’ble court have searched for the Insurance Policy and have found that there was no such Insurance Policy coverage issued to the owner of the vehicle bearing No. AS-05 A-0897 (OIL-TANKER) on the date of accident, i.e, 02/03/2009. Be it mentioned herein that against this said vehicle number & owner of the said vehicle, the appellant herein has no Contract existing at the time of accident. 3. Be it mentioned herein that against this said vehicle number & owner of the said vehicle, the appellant herein has no Contract existing at the time of accident. 3. That I further state that as per various search engine available in our system, the appellant herein has searched through Policy details, Clients name, Vehicle Registration number, Engine number, Chassis Number & cover note number but the appellant was not able to find any Policy being issued against Vehicle bearing No. AS-05A-0897 (OIL-TANKER) on the date of accident, i.e, 02/03/2009 & Owner M/S Golaghat Dibestic Group. 4. That I further state that an email was send to operation team which issues Policy to clients, to find out whether any such Policy is being issued against the vehicle bearing No. AS-05 A-0897 (OIL-TANKER) having coverage on the date of accident i.e, 02/03/2009 to the Owner M/S Golaghat Dibestic Group & said HOD of said Department has confirmed that no such Policy is issued covering date of accident.” As stated above, the owner of the said oil tanker, the respondent No.3 herein preferred not to appeal against the impugned judgment. 4. From the scrutiny of the records it appears that even the respondent No.2 did not file any written statement nor did they appear before the tribunal. But the appellant by filing the written statement in the tribunal has categorically stated that the owner of the oil tanker bearing No.AS-05A/0897 be directed to produce the original insurance policy for proper adjudication. In the para-4 of the said written statement the appellant had categorically denied that the said oil tanker was covered at the material time by any policy of the insurance issued by the appellant. Despite that, the said finding has been returned by the tribunal on the basis of a seizure list and without any scrutiny of the original record. What has emerged now from the affidavit which has not been contested by the respondent No.1, the claimant is that there was no documentary evidence before tribunal nor before this court. There is no substantiating material forming the premise to draw an inference that the oil tanker at the time of the accident was covered by the valid insurance policy issued by the appellant. There is no substantiating material forming the premise to draw an inference that the oil tanker at the time of the accident was covered by the valid insurance policy issued by the appellant. Thus, this court is of the view that the finding returned by the tribunal saddling the liability of payment of the awarded sum to the appellant is wholly untenable in law and accordingly the same is interfered with and quashed. Since there is no other ground of objection in this appeal this court may not be persuade to deliberate on other aspects. 5. Having held so, it is directed that the respondent No.3, M/s. Golaghat Dibestic Group, owner of the oil tanker bearing No. No.AS-05A/0897 shall pay the award to the extent of Rs.3,32,600/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from 04.06.2009, the day of filing the claim-petition till the payment is made and such payment shall invariably be made within the period of 2(two) months from today to the respondent No.1, the claimant in T.S.(MAC) 245 of 2009. It is also made clear that if the respondent No.3 can submit the valid insurance policy, even during the execution of the award, the Certificate Officer or the tribunal after giving an opportunity to the appellant may re-saddle the liability of the payment to the insurer. It is further directed that the statutory deposit as made by the appellant to the extent of Rs.25,000/- in this registry shall be returned to the appellant following the process. 6. In the result, this appeal stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. Draw the award accordingly. Send down the LCRs thereafter. A copy of this judgment and order shall be furnished to the parties by registered post with A.D.