JUDGMENT : Rumi Kumari Phukan, J. Heard. Mr. K. K. Bhatta, learned counsel for appellant. Also heard Mr. R. L. Yadav and Ms. K. Yadav for the respondents. 2. Both the appeals arisen out of the common award dated 26.03.2010 passed in MAC Case No. 135/2002 and MAC Case No. 134/2002, accordingly both the appeals are taken together disposed of by this common order. 3. Brief case that can be recapitulated that on 23.09.2011 one Ajit Dey who was a broker of readymade garments boarded in a truck ASU-4039 along with goods and proceeded to Kanduli Market from Hojai and on 24.09.2001 at 01:30 am the said vehicle fell down in a turning resulting injury to the said person and he died. The wife of the said Ajit Dey, Smti. Sumitra Rani Dey preferred the claim petition claiming compensation for on behalf of old age father of the deceased as well as wife and three minor children who are all dependent upon him. The said claim case was registered MAC 134/2002. 4. On the other hand, the one of the injured Sanjib Debnath who also traveled in the said vehicle along with the said Ajit Dey also sustained injury in the said incident and hence preferred the claim petition for the injury he sustained which was registered as MAC Case NO. 135/2002. 5. In both the cases notice was issued to the respective owner, driver and the insurer of the vehicle. But only the insurance company contested the case by filing their written statement that the vehicle was not insured on the day of occurrence and as such the claimants are entitled the compensation as sought for. On the other hand, drive, owner of the vehicle did not contest the case despite service of notice so the case proceeded ex-parte against them. 6. Both the claimants examined themselves as witness in support of their respective claims and also produced relevant medical certificate and post-mortem examination in respect of injury and cause of death. On the other hand, drive, owner of the vehicle did not contest the case despite service of notice so the case proceeded ex-parte against them. 6. Both the claimants examined themselves as witness in support of their respective claims and also produced relevant medical certificate and post-mortem examination in respect of injury and cause of death. The insurance company in support of their plea submitted their written statement that the vehicle was not insured at the relevant time as examined their witness who produced the certified copy of the insurance policy executed by the owner of the vehicle and also the letter of proposer as well as the receipt of case as against the insurance vide Ext-A is the certified copy of the insurance policy, Ext-B is the proposer letter, Ext-C is the receipt issued by the insurance company. It was their evidence that the vehicle was insured on 26.09.2001 whereas the occurrence took place on 24.09.2001 and as such the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured to pay compensation to the complainant as prayed for. 7. The Ld. Tribunal however rejecting the plea of the insurance company and by raising doubt about the due execution of such insurance policy, as the defence witness could not say about the proper identification of the proposer and as there was overlapping on a date in the insurance certificate, allowed both the claim petitions. The Ld. Tribunal was of opinion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid truck bearing registration ASU-4039 and the deceased Ajit Dey left several dependents directed the insurance company/appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs. 5,16,500/- as compensation to the claimant and the claimant Sanjib Debnath was awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,06,471/- for the injury sustained by him in the said accident. Apart from the compensation, the insurance Company also directed to pay the cost of Rs. 1,000/ each to both the complaints. 8. Raising the grievances that despite proving the facts by the insurance company that the vehicle was not insured on the fateful day, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation, the above two appeals have been preferred by the insurance company. 9. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the materials on record as well as the LCR received. 10. 9. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the materials on record as well as the LCR received. 10. The limited question raised before this Court as to whether the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation while the vehicle involved in the accident was not under insurance coverage? 11. In view of such challenge, this Court is not required to discuss the other factual aspects about the accident or about the claim of the claimants in both the cases. The learned trial court has discussed all the factual aspects of the case while arriving to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to the compensation as granted above and this aspect is not under challenged by the insurance company. The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle never came before the Court either before the tribunal or before this Court to place their case. The case proceeded ex-parte against them and in fact, they are the best person to challenge the case of the plea of the insurance if their vehicle was under insurance coverage on the day of occurrence but they choose to remain absent all thorough. 12. Now the necessary facts as to whether the vehicle was under insurance coverage or not is a criteria between the owner of the vehicle as well as the insurer and the claimants are not at all a party to such dispute. As the claimants were not a party to such affairs of execution of insurance between the owner and the insurer so any say over the affairs will be hearsay evidence and same has little value save and except to refer the number of insurance policy, if same are collected by them. The owner of the vehicle herein did not turn up to contest the case to say that the vehicle was insured or not. On the other hand, the insurance company on the very appearance took the plea that the vehicle was not insured on the day of occurrence. To substantiate their plea, the insurance company has examined one official witness as CW-1, who has proved the necessary insurance policy (certified copy, Letter of proposer and the receipt of the fees towards insurance dated 26.09.2001). 13. To substantiate their plea, the insurance company has examined one official witness as CW-1, who has proved the necessary insurance policy (certified copy, Letter of proposer and the receipt of the fees towards insurance dated 26.09.2001). 13. On perusal of those documents produced by the said witness, it reflects that on the whole body of the insurance policy date was duly typed as 26.09.2001 to reflect that the policy was valid with effect from 26.09.2001 to 25.09.2002 but however in one date there is some overtyping which looks to be either 25 or 20 but from totality of the whole document and the content there it can very well assume that the proposer for insurance was made after the occurrence and the same was valid only with effect from 26.09.2001. Such a hypothetical presumption raised by the Ld. Tribunal raising doubt about the authenticity of the insurance policy appears to be not proper. As has been discussed above, the owner is the best person to challenge the insurance certificate but he refrained himself from the same. The said insurance certificate bears sign and signature of the authority concern and same cannot be thwarted as a false document. 14. The Ld. counsel for the respondent Mr. R. L. Yadav has submitted that there is no irregularity in the findings of the Ld. Tribunal whereas according to the Ld. counsel for the appellant Mr. K. K. Bhatta such a finding being erroneous, without proper appreciation of evidence cannot sustain. 15. The Ld. counsel for appellant has submitted that they could not produce the original copy of insurance despite their search and in fact it remains with the owner of the vehicle and only copy of such insurance policy which is found in the office has been produced before this Court by way of additional affidavit as directed by this Court. Such stand taken by the appellant has been attacked by the Ld. counsel for the respondent that they have tried to suppress the original document which says about their wrongful attitude. Such a submission of the learned counsel for the respondent cannot however be accepted in view of the fact that the insurance company has already produced requisite evidence to prove due execution of insurance policy at the instance of the owner of the vehicle. 16. Today, the Ld. Such a submission of the learned counsel for the respondent cannot however be accepted in view of the fact that the insurance company has already produced requisite evidence to prove due execution of insurance policy at the instance of the owner of the vehicle. 16. Today, the Ld. counsel for the appellant has produced the copy of order dated 27.07.2012 in MAC Appeal No. 105/2017 passed by another coordinate bench wherein the said court has allowed the appeal preferred by the present appellant in connection with another connected appeal arising out of said incident wherein the learned tribunal has awarded compensation to another claimant, rejecting the contention raised by the respondent by holding the owner of the vehicle liable to pay the compensation to such claimant as the vehicle was not insured on the day of occurrence. The relevant observations of the Court in para 7 of the judgment is reproduced below: "On consideration of the evidence as well as the rival contentions as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties this court in the fitness of things is inclined to interfere with the said finding as reproduced as perverse for the simple reason that, that was the outcome of misreading of the policy proposal (Ext.A). Apart that, the owner who was supposed to be indemnified by the said policy had preferred not to contest the claim and not to raise any objection, that has been taken by the appellant in the written statement as extracted. The claimant/respondent No. 1 hardly has nay status to question about the contract as entered into between the insurance company and the owner under section 125 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 having regard to the other statutory requirements. In the relevant time, the vehicle was not under the insurance coverage by the appellant and, accordingly they cannot be saddled with the liability of payment of the compensation. There is no challenge against the quantification of the compensation as assessed by the tribunal, as such the respondent No. 1 is entitled to realize the said compensation from the owner, the respondent No. 2 under the doctrine of vicarious liability for the driver, the respondent No. 3 who has caused death of the son of the respondent No. 1 by the negligent act. For that purpose the respondent No. 2 herein is directed to pay the entire awarded sum i.e. Rs. For that purpose the respondent No. 2 herein is directed to pay the entire awarded sum i.e. Rs. 2,84,000/- with interest @ 7 % p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the payment is made within a period of 2 (two) months from today. It is stated by Mr. S. S. Sarma, learned senior counsel, at this stage that the insurance company had deposited Rs. 1,42,000/- in compliance of the order of this Court and the said amount has been withdrawn by the respondent No. 1 upon execution of a bond, even though the appellant had no liability to ensure the payment of the compensation. It would be proper to direct the respondent No. 2 to make payment of the said sum of Rs. 1,42,000/- to the appellant and the remaining part of the award as passed by the Tribunal to the respondent No. 1 within the stipulated period i.e. two months from today. On failure of the respondent No. 2 in making the payment in the mode as stipulated, the appellant would be at liberty to realize the said amount from the owner, the respondent No. 2 under Section 174 of the M.V Act straightway. The same recourse is also open to the claimant-respondent No. 1 and in case of failure by the respondent No. 2 in making the payment, she may also follow such remedy under section 174 of the M.V Act after expiry of the stipulated time for payment as fixed by this Court." 17. In the given situation, this Court opposed to accept the aforesaid proposition held by the coordinate bench as mentioned above. Accordingly the owner of the vehicle is hereby directed to pay the compensation as given in the respective award in the above MAC Cases within a period of 2 (two) months from today and in case of non-payment the claimant can proceed as indicated in the order mentioned above (para-7). 18. For the reasons as aforesaid both the appeals stand allowed. Return the LCR.