JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Ms. R.D. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 1. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., the owner and driver of the vehicle, respectively, have not appeared despite service of notice in this case. 2. The judgment and award dated 20.5.2013 passed in MAC Case No. 57/1996 whereby the learned Member, MACT, Dhubri had awarded a sum of Rs. 1,45,200 as compensation for the loss of earning suffered by the claimant due to the motor accident has been put under challenge. The appellant is not questioning the quantum of compensation but the only ground on which the appeal is preferred is that there is no insurance policy which was ever issued by the appellant-company in favour of the owner of the vehicle and, therefore, there is no question of saddling the appellant with the liability under the award. 3. Assailing the award passed by the learned Tribunal Ms. Mazumdar has argued that not only in the written statement filed by the appellant but even the witness (DW1) examined by the appellant had categorically stated that there is no insurance policy issued by the appellant in favour of the owner of the vehicle. Notwithstanding the same, the learned Tribunal had directed the appellant to pay the amount of compensation within a period of 90 days failing which interest would be payable on the said amount. The learned counsel submits that the impugned award is liable to be set aside on such count alone. 4. Ms. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submits that there is a certificate issued by the Branch Manager of Bongaigaon Branch of the appellant-company which provides the particulars of the insurance policy and the said certificate is available on record. As such, the onus to prove that the aforesaid information was false, was upon the appellant which burden they have evidently failed to discharge. Under the circumstances, Ms. Choudhury submits that there is no ground for interfering with the impugned judgment and award dated 20.5.2013. 5. As noted above, the appeal has been preferred on a limited point that the appellant as insurance company does not have any liability in this case. Under the circumstances, Ms. Choudhury submits that there is no ground for interfering with the impugned judgment and award dated 20.5.2013. 5. As noted above, the appeal has been preferred on a limited point that the appellant as insurance company does not have any liability in this case. The said plea is based on the fact that the appellant had never issued any insurance policy in favour of the respondent No. 2. In paragraph 16 of the written statement filed before the Tribunal, the appellant had made the following statements: “16. That, the answering opposite party at this stage unable to admit whether the interest of the vehicle allegedly involved in the accident was insured with the opposite party at the relevant time of accident unless further and better particulars regarding the policy is directed to be produced by the owner of the vehicle otherwise the opposite party Insurance Company is not responsible to pay any compensation.” 6. Thereafter, the DW1, who is the Branch Manager of the Dhubri Branch of the appellant-company, has deposed before the learned Tribunal that there is no record of any policy having been issued in favour of the respondent No. 2. However, the learned Tribunal had rejected the aforesaid plea of the appellant on the ground that the averments made in paragraph 16 of the written statement did not amount to specific denial and, hence, would be construed as admission of the fact. I am afraid, such a finding of the learned Tribunal cannot be accepted by this court. What has been stated in paragraph 16 of the written statement is that the appellant-Insurance Company is unable to take a specific stand on the claim of the respondent No. 1-claimant in the absence of better particulars. There was no admission by the appellant of the existence of a valid insurance policy. It transpires from the record that the code number planted in the aforesaid certificate also did not tally with the records maintained by the company. 7. It is also to be noted herein that the owner and driver of the vehicle did not appear before the learned Tribunal despite service of notice. It transpires from the record that the code number planted in the aforesaid certificate also did not tally with the records maintained by the company. 7. It is also to be noted herein that the owner and driver of the vehicle did not appear before the learned Tribunal despite service of notice. If there was, in fact, a valid insurance policy then there was nothing preventing the owner from appearing before the Tribunal and producing the same in which event he would have naturally been absolved of any liability for payment of compensation but the respondent No. 2/owner has failed to do so. 8. The fact that there is no valid insurance policy covering the vehicle of the respondent No. 2 is a negative fact and the insurance company cannot be asked to prove a negative fact by leading evidence. On the contrary, since the claimant has made a claim that the vehicle was insured, the burden to establish the said fact was upon the claimant, which burden he has failed to discharge. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal was not correct in holding that the vehicle was insured with the appellant. As such, no liability could have been fastened upon the appellant-company in the facts and circumstances of this case. 9. In the result, this appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above. The direction of the learned Tribunal asking the appellant-company to pay the compensation stands set aside. It is, however, clarified that the liability would now be wholly upon the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 1/claimant would be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the award against the said respondent. The impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above.