JUDGMENT S G SHAH, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rushang D.Mehta appearing with Mr. Dakshesh Mehta for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. R.K. Mansuri for respondent No.1 and learned advocate Ms. Shivangi M.Rana for respondent No.4 in both the First Appeals. Rests of the respondents, though duly served, have remained absent. Perused the record as well as original R & P of the Tribunal. 2. Both these appeals are arising out of the common judgment and order dated 20.11.2014 in M.A.C.P. Nos.650 of 1998 and 651 of 1998 by the M.A.C.T. of Ahmedabad (Rural). Therefore, both these appeals are heard together and decided by this common CAV judgment, since basic issue raised in both the appeals regarding liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants are common in both the appeals. 3. As the Insurance Company has mainly contended about their liability based upon cancellation of policy by them, there is no much dispute with reference to nature of incident and its result and therefore, those details are not much relevant to be reproduced herein. It is well described in the pleadings as well as in the impugned award. However, when two vehicles are involved in the accident and legal heirs of one of the victim of accident being driver of one of the vehicle have also preferred claim petition, it would be appropriate to record the basic facts, that on 3.4.1998, when deceased victims of road accident being Naranbhai Bharwad and Shardulbhai Bharwad along with Chaganbhai Rajabhai Bharwad and Rasulbhai Mansuri, thereby, in all five passengers were travelling in Fiat Car No.GBE-7329, near Pirana Toll Naka, one Truck No.RNS-2931 had dashed the Fiat Car and there was head-on collusion between both the vehicles. It is undisputed fact that Fiat Car was being driven by Shardulbhai Bharwad, and Shardulbhai Bharwad as well as Naranbhai Bharwad had received fatal injuries in the accident. 4. Because of such accidental death, legal heirs of Naranbhai Bharwad has claimed Rs.5 Lakhs as compensation by filing M.A.C.P. No.650 of 1998; whereas, legal heirs of Shardulbhai Bharwad have also claimed Rs.5 Lakhs as compensation by filing M.A.C.P. No.651 of 1998. 4. Because of such accidental death, legal heirs of Naranbhai Bharwad has claimed Rs.5 Lakhs as compensation by filing M.A.C.P. No.650 of 1998; whereas, legal heirs of Shardulbhai Bharwad have also claimed Rs.5 Lakhs as compensation by filing M.A.C.P. No.651 of 1998. In claim petition by legal heirs of Naranbhai Bharwad, legal heirs, driver and owner of Fiat Car are also joined as opponents; whereas, in claim by legal heirs of Shardulbhai Bharwad, the petition is only against the driver, owner and insurer of Truck. It seems that Fiat Car was not insured since no such Insurance Company was joined on record; whereas, Truck was insured with present appellant being opponent No.2 in both the claim petitions. 5. After allowing litigants to adduce their evidence, by impugned judgment and award dated 20.11.2014, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.4,79,400/- in M.A.C.P. No.650 of 1998 and Rs.4,79,700/- in M.A.C.P. No.651 of 1998. 6. The Tribunal has fixed the liability of Truck owner for the accident and thereby, sole responsibility to pay compensation rests upon owner and insurer of the Truck only. Being aggrieved by such judgment, when Insurance Company of the Truck has challenged such award, it is mainly contended by learned advocate for the appellant that owner of the Truck was not holding valid insurance policy so as to cover the date of accident and therefore, Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the liability by indemnifying the owner by making payment of compensation to the claimants. 7. Since both the claim are of fatal accident, the evidence by the claimants is certainly by their widows and therefore, when one of the driver of vehicle had died in the same accident, the entire burden regarding proof of negligence, so also liability, rests upon opponents No.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of Truck. It seems that Insurance Company has taken a stand that they have paid the damages to the vehicle for some previous incident and at that point of time, policy had been cancelled and therefore, Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. If we peruse the original record, several surprising facts have been disclosed on record. 8. At Exh.14, the appellant - Insurance Company has on 10.1.2001 filed an application before the Tribunal for amendment of their written statement. However, it was not disclosed that when the written statement was filed and at what exhibit. If we peruse the original record, several surprising facts have been disclosed on record. 8. At Exh.14, the appellant - Insurance Company has on 10.1.2001 filed an application before the Tribunal for amendment of their written statement. However, it was not disclosed that when the written statement was filed and at what exhibit. However, it is stated in such application that vehicle No.RNS-2931 was insured by Jodhpur office vide Policy No.97/6302977 for the period between 21.11.1997 to 20.11.1998, but, during the said period, the insured vehicle met with an accident on 27.12.1997 when own damage claim was lodged for the damages to the vehicle. At that time, Insurance Company has settled the claim on net loss basis and thereby, salvage of the vehicle was retained by the insured and Rs.40,000/- were paid to the insured and policy was cancelled vide endorsement No.97/259 dated 27.3.1998 and hence, policy did not remain in force thereafter. Therefore, opponent No.2 wants to amend the written statement by cancelling paragraph No.1 of the written statement and in place of same, to substitute paragraph No.1 in terms of paragraph No.1 of such application, details of which are disclosed herein above. Below such application, the Tribunal has ordered to keep it for reply and hearing. However, thereafter, there is no order at any point of time, so as to allow such application. But when application is on record with a clarification and two signatures of the appellant - Insurance Company before and after verification, there is reason to believe that some written statement is filed on record from which paragraph No.1 is to be deleted and above information is to added. Surprisingly, no such written statement was found prior to Exh.14, but at Exh.23, there is a written statement, which seems to be filed as late as on 20.6.2007, wherein surprisingly paragraph No.2 discloses the same information as disclosed in paragraph No.1 at Exh.14 so as to plead that policy is not in force because of payment of Rs.40,000/- towards net loss for the damages occurred in an accident on 27.2.1997. The date of accident from which present litigation arises is 3.4.1998. Therefore, prima facie, it may seem that if policy is not in force, then, Insurance Company cannot be held responsible to pay compensation. 9. To substantiate their plea, the Insurance Company has produced certain documents with list at Exh.44 as well as Exh.58. The date of accident from which present litigation arises is 3.4.1998. Therefore, prima facie, it may seem that if policy is not in force, then, Insurance Company cannot be held responsible to pay compensation. 9. To substantiate their plea, the Insurance Company has produced certain documents with list at Exh.44 as well as Exh.58. Documents produced with list at Exh.44 are certified copies; whereas, original of same documents are produced with list at Exh.58. The appellant has also examined one Devdatt Shivdattji Gajja, Assistant Manager of Jodhpur Branch at Exh.59 on 7.10.2013. By evidence of this witness, appellant has produced on record, documents at Exhs.60 to 65, which are produced with list at Exh.58. The perusal of such oral evidence makes it clear that though witness and the appellant had tried to prove that they are not responsible, there are not only contradictions in the pleading and in the documentary evidence, but, there are certain false statement and certain admissions regarding ignorance of the witness about the real factual details on the subject. It is undisputed fact that incident is of 1998, policy of insurance is also for the period between 1997 to 1998 and documents tried to be proved on record and exhibited by the Tribunal through such witness were pertaining to the relevant period i.e. in the year 1998; whereas, witness has taken charge of the office only in the year 2006 and therefore, though he is unable to identify the signature of the owner of the vehicle, he had an audacity to identify the signature of the owner of the vehicle at Mark 58/1, which is admitted at Exh.60. One can understand if an Officer of any such company or office identifies the signature of his predecessor, but, here is a witness, who identified the signature of a third party i.e. owner of the vehicle, that too when such signature was alleged to be put in the year 1998 though witness was never in charge of the office or document in the year 1998 and when he was serving in that office only from November, 2006 onwards. 10. 10. Similarly, though in the written statement and application to amend the written statement i.e. Exhs.23 and 14 respectively, the amount paid as net loss to the owner of the vehicle was disclosed as Rs.40,000/-, now, witness, the Manager of the Company has categorically deposed on oath before the Tribunal that settlement of own damage claim on net loss basis was for Rs.38,500/- and documentary evidence produced by the appellant and discussed herein also shows amount of Rs.38,500/- only. Therefore, there is reason to believe that at the time of filing written statement, the Insurance Companies decide to take such stand and then try to create such documents, but fail to realise that what amount is disclosed in the written statement, which was filed on 20.6.2007; whereas, documents were filed on 20.8.2009. 11. Similarly, there is material contradiction regarding endorsement No.97/259 referred by the appellant in their written statement, because, though in the written statement, it is stated that such endorsement is dated 27.3.1998; the endorsement on Exh.63, a document prepared by the Officers of the Insurance Company themselves, discloses that endorsement No.97/259 is dated 30.3.1998. In the same document, in Col. No.18, it is also disclosed that policy was cancelled on 27.3.1998 due to settlement of own damage claim No.98/180 on net loss basis. Therefore, there is material contradiction in the same document being Exh.63 so also in the pleading and evidence on oath and documentary evidence regarding date of endorsement when two dates are shown for such endorsement i.e. 27.3.1998 and 30.3.1998. If we read all these documents in continuity with each other at the same time, it clearly transpires that the outcome of contents of such documents are to the effect that policy has been cancelled w.e.f. 27.3.1998, but, its endorsement was done on 30.3.1998. However, there is no clarity that what is done on which date and thereby, such documents do not disclose correct and real position, more particularly, when dates are overwritten in Col. No.18 at Exh.63. The perusal of such document makes it clear that there is clear overwriting in Col. No.18 so far as the date is concerned. Therefore, such document cannot be relied upon. No.18 at Exh.63. The perusal of such document makes it clear that there is clear overwriting in Col. No.18 so far as the date is concerned. Therefore, such document cannot be relied upon. Similarly, though witness has identified the signature at Exh.60 as signature of the owner of the vehicle as aforesaid, when such witness has no authority to identify the signature, which was not made in his presence and which was not on document of routine activity of the company and more particularly, when signature is of some third party, a person after eight years come and depose that I identify the signature, then, such evidence cannot be relied upon. So far as discrepancy in amount of own damage claim is concerned, Exh.64 is so-called receipt alleged to be signed by the owner of the vehicle, wherein also, the amount is disclosed as Rs.38,500/- and not Rs.40,000/- as pleaded and such receipt does not disclose the vehicle number at all for which such claim is paid. 12. Surprisingly, when own damage claim was settled, either for Rs.38,500/- or for Rs.40,000/-, the Insurance Company has failed to realise that policy is for total amount of Rs.2 Lakhs for own damage, since such amount is disclosed in schedule at Exh.600 the policy document and therefore, the stand by the Insurance Company that since own damage claim has been settled on net loss basis, the policy stands cancelled. It is also clear from Exh.60 that Insurance Company has accepted a basic premium of Rs.5,284/- towards own damage of the vehicle considering the value of the vehicle as Rs.2,00,000/- since it is categorically disclosed as such in the policy. It is also clear that from such basic premium, the Insurance Company has given discount of Rs.200/- for exclusion of risk for earthquake perils and Rs.762.60 as 15% No Claim Bonus i.e. for not claiming any damages in previous year. It is also undisputed fact that, thereby, this gross amount as per Schedule-A regarding own damages being Rs.4,321/- is in addition to other different premiums as per Schedule-B for liability to public risk. It is also undisputed fact that, thereby, this gross amount as per Schedule-A regarding own damages being Rs.4,321/- is in addition to other different premiums as per Schedule-B for liability to public risk. Thereby, for own damage risk, the Insurance Company has accepted Rs.4,321/- as per Schedule-A; whereas, for liability of public risk, Insurance Company has accepted an amount of Rs.1,245/- as basic premium (+) Rs.150/- towards legal liability to passengers (+) Rs.45/- towards legal liability for employees (+) Rs.75/- for unlimited third party property damage and thereby, total premium of Rs.5,836/- (+) Rs.292/- service tax is recovered by the Insurance Company for accepting different type of risk viz. third party risk as per statute, legal liability towards passengers, legal liability for employees, unlimited liability for third party property damage and liability towards damage of the vehicle itself except for the reason of earthquake. 13. Therefore, on one hand, when in all other cases, all such Insurance Companies are repeatedly distinguishing their policies based upon their acceptance of premium, in the present case, they have failed to differentiate their policy and risk for different reasons viz. damage and/or injury to third party and damage to vehicle itself. It is quite clear that in any case, even if Own Damage Claim was settled as net loss, unless total amount for which vehicle was valued and insured has not been paid, there cannot be cancellation of policy even for Own Damage, but, in any case, even if total insured value of the vehicle has been paid by Insurance Company, it is mainly against the acceptance of the premium for the purpose under Schedule-A for Own Damage Risk and therefore, even if Own Damage Claim results into cash loss or net loss, the liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the vehicle in case of accident by such vehicle to the third party has never come to an end, since it is absolutely a statutory liability. In the present case, it is made clear that value of the vehicle is disclosed as Rs. 2 Lakhs and Comprehensive Excess amount is disclosed as Rs.1,500/-. Therefore, policy cannot come to end only because of settlement of Own Damage Claim only for R.38,500/- as net loss. In the present case, it is made clear that value of the vehicle is disclosed as Rs. 2 Lakhs and Comprehensive Excess amount is disclosed as Rs.1,500/-. Therefore, policy cannot come to end only because of settlement of Own Damage Claim only for R.38,500/- as net loss. Whereas, provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 specifically confirms that once certificate of insurance has been issued in favour of the person by whom the policy has been affected, and when judgment or award in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 or Section 163A is obtained against any person insured by such policy, then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel the policy, the insurer shall subject to the provisions of Section 149, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree, the sum payable under the policy as if he were the debtor in respect of the liability together with any amount payable in respect of cost and interest. 14. Therefore, when provision of law specifically confirms that notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or modify the policy, they are liable to pay compensation to the victim of the accident or his legal representative, the attempt by the Insurance Company is futile inasmuch as they have no option but to pay compensation to the third party for the simple reason that the liability to indemnify the owner as per the award is because of the acceptance of premium under Schedule-B regarding liability to public risk and not for the premium accepted by them for Own Damage claim. Even at the cost of repetition, it is to be recorded that, therefore, on one hand, though Insurance Company may be entitled to cancel the policy by settling the own damage claim, it can be done only in case when claim is settled either for the value of the vehicle or where damage is more than the value of the vehicle. But, in any case, such settlement can never affect the liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the vehicle so far as compensation to be paid to the third party, which liability is statutory in nature. 15. But, in any case, such settlement can never affect the liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the vehicle so far as compensation to be paid to the third party, which liability is statutory in nature. 15. If we refer the deposition at Exh.59 by the Manager of the Insurance Company on one hand, though he has attempted to prove the documents and to prove that policy was cancelled, has no option, but to admit that there was no endorsement regarding cancellation of the policy on the policy itself and there was no signature or endorsement by any Officer of the Insurance Company regarding cancellation of the policy and that in Col. No.16, Exh.63, it is disclosed that there is no cancellation of cover-note/policy. He has also admitted that all such information in all such forms had been filled by the employees of the appellant - Insurance Company and there was no date in such documents. He also admits that there is no signature of any Officer even below endorsement at Exh.63. The witness has tried to explain that generally they do not put their signature, but when it was asked to the witness that the receipt at Exh.63 does not disclose the vehicle number, he has an audacity to say that it is slip of pen. Witness also admits that the particular document regarding endorsement is not true copy and the original document remains with the Accounts Department. But, appellant has failed to call upon the original document and in absence of original documents, which are available with the litigant and in absence of endorsement regarding true copy on document and in absence of any signature on such document, which is simple copy only, even if such document is exhibited on record, its contents cannot be considered as proved in accordance with law. Witness also admits that even claim form does not have any endorsement regarding cancellation of the policy and there is no signature of any Officer on Exh.61 so as to confirm that policy is cancelled. Witness also admits that in Exh.62, a letter by the Company, there is overwriting of date. Witness also admits that they did not intimate the owner of the vehicle about cancellation of the policy though he has disclosed on his own that they are getting endorsement of the owner in writing. Witness also admits that in Exh.62, a letter by the Company, there is overwriting of date. Witness also admits that they did not intimate the owner of the vehicle about cancellation of the policy though he has disclosed on his own that they are getting endorsement of the owner in writing. However, when policy is issued by Insurance Company and if it is cancelled by Insurance Company, such endorsement of cancellation must have signature of the Officer of the Company and it should be certainly conveyed to the owner of the vehicle so also Regional Transport Office that particular policy has been cancelled. In that case, Regional Transport Officer shall call upon the owner to produce fresh policy. No such evidence is produced on record and therefore, there is reason to believe that appellant has tried to take advantage of their position by fabricating some documents to make a show that policy has been cancelled because of previous incident of accident prior to accident by which claim petitions are filed. 16. So far as submission by learned advocate for the appellant regarding consideration of evidence is concerned, I am shocked and surprised to hear that court is duty-bound to consider the documents produced by the nationalised Companies and Corporations even without proper evidence to prove its contents. Reference to the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Krishna Sharma & Ors. reported in, (1998) ACJ 1222 is the answer, wherein after relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chandradhar Goswami & Ors. Vs. Gauhati Bank Ltd. reported in, (1967) AIR SC 1058 held that, even certificate of insurance is not a public document to be admissible in evidence without any proof. Therefore, it can never be said that documents produced by the Insurance Company are to be accepted as gospel truth as submitted by the appellant. 17. The appellant has repeatedly referred Section 64(V)(B) of the Insurance Act. Pursuant to such provision, Insurance Company would not be held liable if premium is not paid. However, such provision would not help the appellant because this is not a case where premium is not paid. 18. Similarly, judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. C.M. Jaya & Ors. Pursuant to such provision, Insurance Company would not be held liable if premium is not paid. However, such provision would not help the appellant because this is not a case where premium is not paid. 18. Similarly, judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. C.M. Jaya & Ors. reported in, (2002) 2 SCC 278 is also of no help to the appellant because therein also, the issue was with reference to higher liability of the Insurance Company in old Act of 1939 against payment of additional premium. There is no such issue in the present case and therefore, because of such judgment, it cannot be held that Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 19. Thereby, when evidence on record does not categorically prove that policy was properly cancelled and such cancellation was to intimated to the owner of the vehicle, it cannot be said that policy was cancelled and therefore, Insurance Company is not liable. However, as discussed herein above, the policy cannot be cancelled at all since though the claim might have been settled on net loss basis, there is discrepancy in payment of damages and against the policy of Rs.2 Lakhs when Insurance Company has paid only Rs.38,500/-, they have no right whatsoever to cancel the policy at all and therefore also, cancellation of policy is not proper. Whereas, discrepancy, overwriting and absence of signature on relevant documents, does not prove even cancellation of the policy as alleged. 20. Whereas, as discussed herein above, even if Own Damage is settled on net loss for the total value of the policy, the cancellation of policy would be limited to Own Damage Risk only and not for third party risk, which is statutory in nature and relying upon provisions of Sections 147 and 149 of the M.V. Act, the Insurance Company cannot escape from their liability to pay compensation to the third party. The appellant has by their affidavit dated 6.5.2016 produced the non- authenticated copy of page No.5 of their Procedural Rules regarding Settlement Procedure of Motor Own Damage and Theft Claims. Therefore, when such rules are limited for Own Damage and Theft Claims only, they would not apply to third party claim, which is statutory under the M.V. Act. The appellant has by their affidavit dated 6.5.2016 produced the non- authenticated copy of page No.5 of their Procedural Rules regarding Settlement Procedure of Motor Own Damage and Theft Claims. Therefore, when such rules are limited for Own Damage and Theft Claims only, they would not apply to third party claim, which is statutory under the M.V. Act. Moreover, such rules does not discuss anything about net loss though there is a reference of total loss settlement and cash loss settlement. 21. In view of what is discussed herein above, I do not find any substance in the First Appeal. No other points are raised except for the liability of the Insurance Company based on the alleged cancellation of the policy, but when cancellation of policy is not warranted and when even there is no proper evidence on record that policy was properly cancelled, and more particularly, when cancellation of policy would be limited only for Own Damage and Theft Claims, the liability of Insurance Company cannot come to an end even if policy is cancelled for Own Damage, for the risk of third party, which is statutory and when provision of Section 149 categorically confirms that notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel the policy, the insurer shall subject to the provisions of Section 149, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree, the sum payable under the policy as if he were the debtor in respect of the liability together with any amount payable in respect of cost and interest. Section 149(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act is reproduced hereunder:- 149(1) If, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (3) of section 147 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment or award in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (l) of section 147 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) 1[or under the provisions of section 163A] is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments. 22. In view of above facts and circumstances, there is no substance in the First Appeals and same stand dismissed.