JUDGMENT & ORDER : Challenging the judgment and award dated 02.08.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in T.S. (MAC) 20/2010 the owner has preferred this appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal has committed error in directing him to pay the amount of compensation to the respondents herein. 2. It is necessary to elucidate the facts in short for determination of the case. The learned Tribunal has held in its judgment that the owner of the vehicle No. AS-01-BC-1484 was not insured with the Insurance Company on the date of accident, i.e. on 21.08.2008 on the ground that the Insurance Company has stated that the vehicle was insured w.e.f. 25.08.2008. 3. The core question to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the vehicle No. AS-01-BC-1484 was insured w.e.f. 15.08.2008 or w.e.f. 25.08.2008. 4. In support of the claim, the owner (insured) of the vehicle, has submitted the certified copy of the policy document of the concerned vehicle but since the document was a certified copy of the policy, learned Tribunal was not inclined to place reliance upon that document. The Insurance Company has produced one photocopy of the copy of computer generated policy document and in view of that the Tribunal has fixed the liability upon the owner (insured) of vehicle No. AS-01-BC-1484. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the owner has preferred the instant appeal before this Court. 5. At the very outset, Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn my attention to paragraph 21 of a judgment of this Court dated 31.01.2018 delivered in CRP 48/2016 [The Chief Regional Manger, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Fulan Deb & Ors.]. Mr. Datta, submits that the facts of CRP 48/2016 have a direct bearing upon the present case as both the claims arose out of the same accident. 6. Para 21 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder: “21. Mr. Datta, learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has failed to produce the proposal form and they had taken a new plea before the other tribunal, which is quite different from the plea that has been taken in their review petition. In the review proceeding, the petitioner had simply avoided production of the proposal form or the documents and adducing the officer who certified these copies of the document. In the review proceeding, the petitioner had simply avoided production of the proposal form or the documents and adducing the officer who certified these copies of the document. Thus the tribunal had clearly observed by the impugned judgment and order that the petitioner failed to discharge the onus of adducing proof that the policy relied by the tribunal and marked Exbt-A series in passing the award was forged. Mr. Datta, learned counsel has further submitted that from Exbt-A series, it would be apparent that the premium was paid by cheque No.4061001967 dated 15.08.2008 by the original owner for a sum of Rs.15,584/- and on the basis of that the said policy was issued showing that the policy would be effective from 15.08.2008 to midnight of 14.08.2009. The petitioner-insurance company did not produce any bank records from the bank with which they usually carried on their usual transaction to show that no such cheque was deposited by them and as such there was no question of issuing the said policy [Exbt-A series]. However, Mr. Datta, learned counsel has reiterated that on the very day of accident the police seized the said insurance policy showing that the policy was valid from 15.08.2008 and hence hardly there was any space for subsequent manipulation for having the coverage. Mr. Datta, learned counsel has also submitted that that aspect was of paramount importance.” 7. In para 22 of CRP 48/2016 this Court has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Rakesh Kumar & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2016) 14 SCC 219 where the Apex Court has held as under: “18. In our considered opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid driving license at the time of accident and that the Insurance Company failed to adduce any evidence to prove otherwise. This finding of the Tribunal, in our view, should not have been set aside by the High Court for the following reasons: 18.1 First, the driver of the offending vehicle (N.A.-2) proved his driving license (Exhibit-R1) in his evidence. 18.2 Second, when the license was proved, the Insurance Company did not raise any objection about its admissibility or manner of proving. 18.2 Second, when the license was proved, the Insurance Company did not raise any objection about its admissibility or manner of proving. 18.3 Third, even if any objection had been raised, it would have had no merit because it has come on record that the original driving license was filed by the driver in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First class, Naraingarh in a criminal case arising out of the same accident. 18.4 Fourth, in any event, once the license was proved by the driver and marked in evidence and without there being any objection by the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company had no right to raise any objection about the admissibility and manner of proving of the license at a later stage (See Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Premlata Shukla & Ors.: (2007) 13 SCC 476). 18.5 Lastly, the Insurance Company failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the driving license (Ex.R1) was either fake or invalid for some reason. 19. In the light of foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the High court was not right in reversing the finding of the Tribunal. Indeed, the High Court should have taken note of these reasons which, in our view, were germane for deciding the issue of liability of the Insurance Company arising out of the accident. 20. We, therefore, find no good ground to concur with the finding of the High Court. Thus while reversing the finding, we hold that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving license (Exhibit-R1) at the time of accident and since the Insurance Company failed to prove otherwise, it was liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and enhanced by the High Court. 21. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeals filed by the insured (owner of the offending vehicle) succeed and are allowed. Impugned order in so far as it relates to exonerating of the Insurance Company from the liability to pay the compensation is set aside and the Insurance Company (Respondent No.1) is held liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and enhanced by the High Court jointly and severally along with the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.” [Emphasis added] 8. Having appreciated the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and the authorities of the Apex Court, this Court has held that the claimants have proved their case by furnishing certified copy of the policy documents as well as from Exhibit-A series it was apparent that the premium was paid by cheque No. 4061001967 dated 15.08.2008 by the original owner for a sum of Rs.15,584/-. This Court has further held that on the basis of that the said policy was issued showing the policy to be effective from 15.08.2008 to till the midnight of 14.08.2009. 9. This Court also has clearly held that the Insurance Company has miserably failed to discharge the liability to substantiate their plea that the policy came into force w.e.f. 25.08.2008 when the owner of the vehicle Smt. Dipti Das paid the premium. According to this Court, it was not impossible for the Insurance Company to substantiate their said plea. There were so many scopes. They could have produced the bank statement for the relevant period. They could have produced other documents which must have been lying with them but they did not come forward before the Tribunal to substantiate their plea that the policy period was not w.e.f. from 15.08.2008 but from 25.08.2008, i.e. after occurrence of the accident. 10. In my opinion, the factual matrix of CRP 48 of 2016 squarely covers the present case in hand. In para 24 of the said judgment, this Court has observed that the Insurance Company had raised different pleas in different Tribunals. According to me, even the Insurance Company could not substantiate the fact of destruction of documents or records. As such, this Court finds no reason to fasten the liability upon the owner-appellant of the present case and, accordingly, the liability has been fastened with the respondent-Oriental Insurance Company. 11. Mr. P. Gautam, appearing on behalf of the respondent Insurance Co. has strenuously argued that the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability with the owner of the vehicle as the insured did not produce the original copy of the policy document. 12. I find no force in the said submission of learned counsel, Mr. P Gautam because of the decision and discussions made in CRP 48/2016 passed by this Court. 13. has strenuously argued that the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability with the owner of the vehicle as the insured did not produce the original copy of the policy document. 12. I find no force in the said submission of learned counsel, Mr. P Gautam because of the decision and discussions made in CRP 48/2016 passed by this Court. 13. The Oriental Insurance Company is directed to make payment of the total amount of the compensation as decided by the Tribunal with the Registry of this Court within 3(three) months from today. It is made clear that in this appeal the original owner has died and his legal heirs have been substituted. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant appeal stands allowed and disposed of.