JUDGMENT : Nelson Sailo, J. Heard, Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. None appears for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 despite notice. 2. This is an appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Company against the Judgment & Award dated 05.05.2017, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 20/2014, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 63,40,573/- to the claimant/respondent No. 1, as compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim i.e., 24.04.2014. 3. Brief facts for disposing the present appeal may be noticed at the outset. It is the case of the claimant/respondent No. 1 that her husband, Sh. C. Hrangkima met with a motor vehicular accident on 01.04.2011 at around 9:50 AM, while coming towards Aizawl from N. Vanlaiphai in a vehicle (Gypsy) bearing registration No. MZ-01-F-1528, belonging to one Sh. K. Rinkima (respondent No. 2) and driven by Sh. Lalruattluanga. The vehicle near Thiak village ran down to the roadside gorge and as a result, the driver of the vehicle sustained severe injuries and the husband of the claimant/respondent No. 1 died on the spot. The vehicle was also severely damaged. As a result, a criminal case i.e., Sialsuk P.S. Case No. 5/2011 dated 01.04.2011 under Section 279/336/42/304A was registered. The accident vehicle was insured with the appellant vide Insurance Acknowledgement letter dated 02.06.2010 and was valid from 02.06.2010 to 01.06.2011. The claimant/respondent No. 1 thus filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) against the appellant and the first owner and the second owner of the accident vehicle claiming compensation. 4. The respondent No. 2, as the first owner of the accident vehicle contested the claim by filing his written statement, wherein he stated that he sold the vehicle on 21.09.2010 to the respondent No. 3. He also stated that he had no liability in the case and that the vehicle was duly insured with the appellant for the period w.e.f., 01.06.2010 to 01.06.2011 by paying a premium of Rs. 1900/-. In his written statement, he also annexed a sale deed to show that he had sold the vehicle to the respondent No. 3. 5. He also stated that he had no liability in the case and that the vehicle was duly insured with the appellant for the period w.e.f., 01.06.2010 to 01.06.2011 by paying a premium of Rs. 1900/-. In his written statement, he also annexed a sale deed to show that he had sold the vehicle to the respondent No. 3. 5. The appellant also contested the claim by filing written statement and denying that the Insurance policy/cover note was issued by the appellant, insuring the vehicle concerned in the name of the respondent No. 2. The appellant maintained that the acknowledgement letter submitted by the claimant/respondent No. 1, showing the receipt of a premium for insuring the accident vehicle was a fake and forged document. In support of such stand, the appellant examined two witnesses namely, Sh. Bitopan Gogoi, Legal Manager of the appellant Insurance Company and Sh. Zairemmawia Saiawi, an Agent of the Insurance Company. 6. The claimant/respondent No. 1 in support of her claim examined herself as the claimant witness No. 1 and the case I.O. as claimant witness No. 2. She deposed that her husband as Executive Engineer under the Power & Electricity Department, Government of Mizoram was drawing a salary of Rs. 44,309/- as on the date of the accident i.e., 01.04.2011. She further deposed that she got married to her late husband in the year 1985 and out of their wedlock, two sons and two daughters were born to them. In support of her claim, she exhibited the Last Pay Certificate of her husband, the Post Mortem Examination Report, Birth Certificate of the deceased, Registration Certificate of the accident vehicle, Insurance Acknowledgement receipt etc. amongst others. The Tribunal consequently disposed of the claim application by awarding compensation to the claimant/respondent No. 1 as already stated hereinabove. 7. Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal. He submits that despite the examination of two defence witnesses by the appellant, the Tribunal not only failed to appreciate the evidence led but in fact, discarded the evidence of the appellant all together. 7. Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal. He submits that despite the examination of two defence witnesses by the appellant, the Tribunal not only failed to appreciate the evidence led but in fact, discarded the evidence of the appellant all together. He submits that the claimant/respondent No. 1 by producing the acknowledgement receipt of the Insurance allegedly issued by the appellant Insurance Company without producing the original copy thereof has failed to discharge the burden of proving that the accident vehicle was indeed insured with the appellant Insurance Company. He submits that since the two defendant witnesses in their deposition before the Tribunal denied that the acknowledgement receipt was issued by the appellant Insurance Company, the onus of proof therefore shifted to the claimant/respondent No. 1 to show that the accident vehicle was indeed insured with the appellant. As such, the impugned Judgment & Award is misconceived, erroneous and liable to be set aside. 8. Before going any further on the respective arguments and submissions made by the rival parties, it may be noticed that on 10.07.2018, during the course of argument, it was noticed that the accident vehicle was also insured with United India Insurance Company Limited vide Policy No. 130801/31/10/02/00002383 on 21.08.2010. The validity period of the Insurance policy was from 23.08.2010 to 22.08.2011. Upon discovering the same, the parties were permitted to file their respective additional affidavits to bring on record additional documents in the light of the discovery made. Pursuant thereto, both the rival parties have filed their additional affidavits. 9. The affidavits of the claimant/respondent No. 1 filed on 24.07.2018 and 25.01.2019 goes to show that the claimant/respondent No. 1 initially filed MACT Case No. 87/2011 claiming compensation out of the same accident and against the instant appellant as well as the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in this appeal. The claim application however was withdrawn on 20.06.2012. The affidavits further goes to show that the accident vehicle B/R. No. MZ-01-F-1528 was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited for the period between midnight of 23.08.2010 to midnight of 22.08.2011. 10. The additional affidavit of the appellant filed on 07.09.2018 further goes to show that the claimant/respondent No. 1 besides filing MACT Case No. 87/2011 had also filed MACT Case No. 88/2011. 10. The additional affidavit of the appellant filed on 07.09.2018 further goes to show that the claimant/respondent No. 1 besides filing MACT Case No. 87/2011 had also filed MACT Case No. 88/2011. The parties in the said claim application are similar except that instead of the present appellant, the United India Insurance Company Limited is arrayed as the opposite party No. 3. MACT Case No. 88/2011 was filed by the present claimant/respondent No. 1 claiming compensation for the very same accident in which her late husband expired and which involved the same vehicle. However, as already stated above, the claim was against the United India Insurance Company Limited besides the two (2) owners of the vehicle concerned. The documents annexed to the additional affidavit further goes to show that the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimant/respondent No. 1 under Section 140 of the MV Act on no fault basis. The same was paid to the claimant/respondent No. 1 on 14.12.2012. Thereafter, the Tribunal vide its Judgment dated 10.02.2014 finally adjudicated MACT Case No. 88/2011 by coming to a finding that the claimant/respondent No. 1 failed to proof or establish fault. Accordingly, the claim application was dismissed by restricting the compensation to Rs. 50,000/- as was already awarded under Section 140 of the MV Act. 11. After the dismissal of the MACT Case No. 88/2011 in the above manner, the claimant/respondent No. 1 filed another claim for the same accident through MACT Case No. 20/2014. The said claim was decided vide Judgment & Order dated 05.05.2017, which is impugned in the instant appeal. The issue which is required to be considered under the circumstance is as to whether a second claim for the very same accident will be maintainable against a different Insurance Company with whom the claimant/respondent No. 1 claims that the accident vehicle was also insured with. It is a well settled principle that vehicles are insured with Insurance Companies so that in the event of an accident, the insured can be indemnified by the Insurance Company as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy and for such admissible amount. The purpose of insurance is for indemnification and not for profit. 12. It is a well settled principle that vehicles are insured with Insurance Companies so that in the event of an accident, the insured can be indemnified by the Insurance Company as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy and for such admissible amount. The purpose of insurance is for indemnification and not for profit. 12. In the present case, although the Insurance Companies in MACT Case No. 88/2011 and MACT Case No. 20/2014 may be different but the fact remains that both the claims are against the first owner and second owner of the accident vehicle. The two Insurance Companies are only arrayed as opposite party to the two claims for the purpose of indemnification. As can be readily noticed from the Judgment dated 10.02.2014 passed by the Tribunal in MACT Case No. 88/2011, which is annexed as Annexure-6 to the additional affidavit dated 07.09.2018 of the appellant Insurance Company, the Tribunal came to the finding that the claimant/respondent No. 1 failed to prove fault on the part of the driver as required in a claim under Section 166 of the MV Act and as such, dismissed the claim while restricting the compensation to the amount already given under Section 140 of the MV Act, i.e., Rs. 50,000/-. 13. The Apex Court in the case of Yallwwa and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, (2007) 6 SCC 657 has held that an order of the Tribunal awarding compensation under Section 140 of the MV Act is appealable under Section 173 of the same Act as it amounts to an award under Section 173. Therefore, with the finding reached by the Tribunal vide Judgment dated 10.02.2014 in MACT Case No. 88/2011, which admittedly remains unchallenged, it will not be permissible for the claimant/respondent No. 1 to file a separate claim seeking indemnification for the accident even though it is from a different Insurance Company. This is because the issue involved and the surrounding facts and circumstances involved particularly between the claimant/respondent No. 1 and the two (2) owners of the vehicle involved are one and the same. 14. Under the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that not only the impugned Judgment & Award but the claim itself will not be maintainable. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment & Award dated 05.05.2017 is hereby set aside. 14. Under the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that not only the impugned Judgment & Award but the claim itself will not be maintainable. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment & Award dated 05.05.2017 is hereby set aside. Notwithstanding the setting aside of the impugned Judgment & Award, the claimant/respondent No. 1 will not be precluded from seeking such remedy as may be available to her in law against the Judgment rendered in MACT Case No. 88/2011. 15. With the above observation and direction, the appeal stands disposed of. Registry to send back the LCR. Appellant is permitted to withdraw the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- for filing the appeal alongwith interests, if any.