JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Ms. S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. A.R. Shome, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3. None appears on call for respondent Nos. 2 and 4. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “MV Act”) is preferred against the judgment and award dated 19.03.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Darrang, Mangaldai in MAC case No. 184/2005. 3. In the claim petition, the case of the respondent No. 1, in brief is that he was working as the driver of a mini truck bearing registration No. AS-13-B/3622. While driving the said vehicle on NH-37, a ten-wheeler truck bearing registration No. HR-38-J/6911 dashed against his vehicle on 25.05.2005 at about 8.25 pm at Borogaon under Fatashil Ambari P.S., Guwahati. As a result of the accident, the respondent No. 1 had sustained grievance injury. The respondent No. 2 did not contest the proceeding. However, the appellant, respondent No. 3 as well as the respondent No. 4 had contested the claim proceedings by filing their respective written statements. The appellant had taken all the usual pleas, and had put the respondent No. 1 to strict proof of his claim. 4. On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal: (i) Whether the claimant sustained injury on his person in the vehicular accident as a result of driving the vehicle bearing registration Nos. AS-13-B/3622 and HR-38-J/6911 by the drivers rashly and negligently through the N.H.37 at Borogaon under Fatashil, Ambari P. S. on 25/05/2005 ? (ii) Whether at the material time the offending vehicles were validly insured with O.P. No. 3 and 4 ? (iii) Whether the amount of compensation claimed by the claimant is high, excessive and exorbitant one ? (iv) Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation as prayed for; if so, from whom and to what extent ? 5. The respondent No. 1 had examined two witnesses including himself and has exhibited various documents in his evidence. In respect of issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal had held that the drivers of both the vehicles were held guilty of contributory negligence and both were driving in rash and negligent manner. 5. The respondent No. 1 had examined two witnesses including himself and has exhibited various documents in his evidence. In respect of issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal had held that the drivers of both the vehicles were held guilty of contributory negligence and both were driving in rash and negligent manner. In respect of issue No. 2, it was held that the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-13-B/3622 was not insured with the respondent No. 4 i.e. United India Insurance Company Ltd., and it was held that the offending vehicle, i.e. HR-38-J/6911 was found insured by the appellant. On the basis of vouchers of Rs.95,759/-for medical expenses incurred by the respondent No. 1, a total compensation of Rs.1,06,620/-was awarded on account of medical expenses including the journey fare. The respondent No. 1 was also held to be entitled to future medical treatment of Rs.20,000/-, loss of income of Rs.60,000/-, and Rs.12,000/-on account of pain and sufferings, and the total compensation of Rs.1,06,620/-, was rounded to Rs.2.00 lakh. The respondent No. 3 as well as the appellant were directed to pay a sum of Rs.2.00 lakh equally with interest @ 6% per annum. Accordingly, the liability of the appellant came to Rs.1.00 lakh with interest @ 6% per annum and the remaining sum of Rs.1.00 lakh and interest thereon was to be paid by the respondent No. 3. 6. The only issue raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that at the relevant time, the Truck bearing registration No. HR-38-J/6911 was not insured with the appellant and that it was only having a cover note, which was not converted to a regular insurance policy. 7. Having perused the Trial Court records, it appears that the appellant did not cross-examine the claimants witnesses and had also not examined any witness to prove the said stand. Therefore, this Court does not find any material on record which can sustain the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. This Court is of the opinion that if the appellant is taken a plea that the offending vehicle was not duly insured, it was required that the appellant should lead some evidence through its officers to prove that the offending vehicle was not having a valid insurance coverage on the date when the accident had occurred. 8. This Court is of the opinion that if the appellant is taken a plea that the offending vehicle was not duly insured, it was required that the appellant should lead some evidence through its officers to prove that the offending vehicle was not having a valid insurance coverage on the date when the accident had occurred. It is the requirement of Section 147(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 that where the cover note by the insured is not followed by insurance policy within the prescribed time, the insurer is required to inform the registering authority in whose records the vehicle is registered. Therefore, in the absence of any proof of compliance of the provision of Section 147(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is not found to be acceptable. Accordingly, this appeal fails. The impugned judgment and award dated 19.03.2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Darrang, Mangaldai in MAC Case No. 184/2005 stands affirmed. 9. There shall be no order as to cost. 10. The registry may release the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/-to the appellant. 11. Let the LCR be returned forthwith.