JUDGMENT Ashok G. Nijagannavar, J. - Though this appeal is listed for admission with the consent of learned counsel for both sides, arguments are heard for final disposal. 2. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company assailing the judgment and award dated 01.10.2010 passed in M.V.C. No. 10/2010 by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Challakere (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal for the sake of brevity). The Insurance Company has assailed the judgment and award on the question of liability alone. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status and ranking before the Tribunal. 4. The facts briefly stated are that the claimants have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereafter referred to as Act for the sake of brevity), seeking compensation in respect of death of Palaiah @ Palanaik, s/o. Kumaraswamy, in a road traffic accident which occurred on 30.05.2007 at about 2.40 p.m. near Kukkambudi village, Challakere Taluk. It is contended that, on the fateful day of the accident, the deceased was going on his motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-16-J-9629 near Gowrasamudra to Bukkambudi and when he had parked his motor cycle on the road side near Bukkambudi channel to attend nature call, a lorry bearing registration No. KA-06/1544 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner was shifted to Government Primary Hospital, Bedareddihalli, and thereafter, he was taken to C.J. Hospital, Davanagere. But, he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. The petitioners have incurred medical expenses of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Due to the untimely death of the main earning member of the family, the petitioners have become orphans and have lost financial support. 5. On service of summons, the respondent No. 1 appeared, but has not filed the objections. The respondent No. 2 Insurance Company appeared and has filed objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent No. 2 has specifically taken up a defense that the driver of the lorry had no effective driving licence and the said lorry was not insured with the respondent No. 2. 6. The respondent No. 2 Insurance Company appeared and has filed objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent No. 2 has specifically taken up a defense that the driver of the lorry had no effective driving licence and the said lorry was not insured with the respondent No. 2. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the petitioners prove that the alleged road traffic accident that took place on 30.05.2007 at about 2.40 p.m., near Bukkambudi village, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District, on account of actionable negligence of the driver of lorry bearing No. KA-06/1544? ii. Whether the petitioners prove the death of Palaiah @ Palanaik, s/o. Kumaraswamy and they are entitled for compensation? If yes, how much and from whom? iii. What order and award? 7. On appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No. KA-06/1544 and has awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,21,000/- under various heads and has further directed the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay the compensation. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has preferred the appeal challenging the liability. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and perused the judgment. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that in the present case, the lorry involved in the accident was not insured with respondent No. 2 as on the date of the accident. The Policy issued by the respondent No. 2 Insurance Company was only for the period from 28.12.2005 to 27.12.2006. But, whereas the accident has occurred on 30.05.2007. The respondent No. 2 Insurance Company had not issued the Policy for the said period. As such, the appellant - Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal has committed error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company on the basis of the xerox copy of the insurance policy produced by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 which is said to be valid from 28.12.2006 to 27.12.2007. As such, the appellant - Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal has committed error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company on the basis of the xerox copy of the insurance policy produced by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 which is said to be valid from 28.12.2006 to 27.12.2007. In reality, the xerox copy of the policy which was produced by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 was a tampered document, wherein the period of policy was shown as 28.12.2006 to 27.12.2007, which is not correct. 11. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the policy copy which was produced before the Tribunal was handed over by the counsel for the petitioners to the counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company and the same was produced before the Tribunal without verifying the period of policy and the date shown as 28.12.2006 to 27.12.2007, even though, no such policy was issued by the respondent No. 2 - Insurance Company. On account of the said mistake, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. The Tribunal has failed to go through the contents of the said policy and to find out that there was tampering of the date mentioned in the said policy, thus it has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submitted that the policy copy was produced by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company before the Tribunal. Based on the said document, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. Thus, the appellant - Insurance Company is estopped from contending that the policy said to have been issued by the Insurance Company was not in force. There are no valid grounds to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the Tribunal. 13. Having heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, only point that arise for consideration is: Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation? 14. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the judgment in this case was passed on 01.10.2010 awarding a compensation of Rs. Having heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, only point that arise for consideration is: Whether the Tribunal was justified in fixing the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation? 14. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the judgment in this case was passed on 01.10.2010 awarding a compensation of Rs. 4,21,000/- and directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay the compensation. Thereafter, the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has filed an application under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure to review the judgment and award passed by the trial Court on 01.10.2010 and for setting aside the same and to dismiss the petition as against respondent No. 2 -Insurance Company. 15. On hearing the parties, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the respondent - Insurance Company has filed the policy copy through its counsel, as such, the trial Court had no reason to disbelieve the said document. Further, the trial Court has observed that the respondent No. 2 has not made out any grounds to consider the review petition and has dismissed the review petition. 16. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal has observed in its judgment that the respondent No. 2 -Insurance Company has not led any oral evidence, but the respondent No. 2 has produced the xerox copy of the insurance policy which shows that the policy was valid from 28.12.2006 to 27.12.2007 and the accident has taken place on 30.05.2007, as such, the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. At that point of time, the learned counsel for the respondent before the trial Court has not raised any objection regarding tampering of the policy. Since the said document was produced by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 -Insurance Company, the trial Court had no reason to disbelieve the said document. On the same reason, even the review petition filed by the respondent No. 2 -Insurance Company has been dismissed. 17. The learned counsel for the appellant -Insurance Company submitted that the said mistake was due to the sheer negligence of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company before the Tribunal, for the said reason, the Insurance Company should not be saddled with the liability to pay the compensation. 17. The learned counsel for the appellant -Insurance Company submitted that the said mistake was due to the sheer negligence of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company before the Tribunal, for the said reason, the Insurance Company should not be saddled with the liability to pay the compensation. In the instant case, the Tribunal considering the xerox copy of the policy produced by the respondent No. 2 -Insurance Company, has come to the conclusion that there was liability on the part of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. At a later stage, the Insurance Company has come to know about the tampering of the policy. Thus, all these issues have to be considered if the Insurance Company is able to prove any fraud committed in producing the xerox copy of the policy by tampering the dates, or negligence on the part of the petitioners or respondents and the same shall have to be proved by initiating separate proceedings. The Insurance Company shall have to pay the compensation as ordered by the Tribunal and then recover the same from the respondent No. 1 or concerned parties in the event of succeeding in proving the fraud or tampering of the document. The finding given by the Tribunal directing the respondent -Insurance company to pay the compensation is based on the admission made by the learned counsel for the respondent along with photocopy of policy, as such the finding of the Tribunal is justified. Hence, the point is answered in affirmative. 18. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that there are no valid grounds to set aside the judgment and award passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, I pass the following: i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed. ii. The amount in deposit before this Court shall be transmitted to the trial Court. iii. The appellant - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance compensation amount within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. iv. The parties to bear their respective costs.