JUDGMENT :- (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and judgment dated 23.02.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Hosur.) 1. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( Sub Court ), Hosur fixing liability on it to pay a sum of Rs.2,28,000/- with 7.5% interest from the date of petition till th date of deposit, to the claimant / 1st respondent herein. 2. The claim petition filed by the accident victim alleging on 16.12.2013 at about 11.00 a.m., while he was returning home in his two wheeler Bajaj CD motor cycle bearing registration No. TN 24 V 9355, near Attibele – Andhivadi Check Post Road, Bommandapalli Gate cure, the Bolero car bearing registration No. KA 35 M 4655 owned by on Bala subramani and insured under the TATA AIG General Insurance Company, Limited dashed against the claimant and caused fractured injuries. He was admitted in the hospital for 5 days as inpatient and got discharged after surgery on his right toe. Due to deformed toe, he is not able to carry on his avocation as lorry driver, hence compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- claimed against the owner of the Bolero car and its insurer. 3. The Insurance Company filed its counter stating that the Bolero car was not insured under them for the period from 14.12.2013 to 13.12.2014 as claimed by in the petition. The photocopy of the insurance policy produced to the Motor Vehicle inspector by the vehicle owner is a fake document. As per the records maintained by the Insurance Company, the said vehicle was insured for the period 16.12.2013 to 15.12.2014. In this regard for fabricating fake insurance policy to make unlawful gain, police complaint has been given against Bala subramani, the vehicle owner. There was no valid insurance contract between the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company at the time of accident. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the vehicle owner nor to pay any compensation to the claimant. 4. Before the tribunal, the claimant examined as PW-1 and marked 11 exhibits. On behalf of the respondent Insurance Company RW-1 was examined and 6 exhibits were marked. 5. The tribunal allowed the claim petition. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the vehicle owner nor to pay any compensation to the claimant. 4. Before the tribunal, the claimant examined as PW-1 and marked 11 exhibits. On behalf of the respondent Insurance Company RW-1 was examined and 6 exhibits were marked. 5. The tribunal allowed the claim petition. Awarded Rs.2,28,000/- with 7.5% interest from the date of petition till the date of deposit, payable by the Insurance Company. 6. The appellant assail the tribunal award on the ground that the tribunal failed to appreciate that the owner of the offending Bolero car bearing registration No. KA 35 M 4655 had no valid insurance cover for the vehicle at the time of accident. The insurance policy copy Ex P-3 produced by the claimant is a fake policy note. It is a xerrox copy and not original. However, same was accepted by the tribunal despite the fact that the claimant failed to produce the original of it. The tribunal erred in misunderstanding the entry in the Motor Vehicle Inspector report. It erroneously held that 14.12.2013 as date of commencement of coverage instead of date of expiry. The true fact that at the time of accident the vehicle had no insurance coverage. This fact had been overlooked by the tribunal, in spite of the evidence of RW-1 and Ex R-1 to Ex.R-6, which proves that the insurance policy of the offending vehicle expired and when the accident occurred on 16.12.2013 at 11.00 a.m., there was no valid insurance coverage. The insurance policy produced by the claimant is fake. The vehicle owner suppressing the accident occurred in the morning, took policy only at 08.00 pm on 16.12.2013 and the original policy is Ex.R-6. The tribunal erred in observing that the offending vehicle would have been recovered by the police immediately after the accident and if the vehicle was insured after the accident, then the insurance agent would have noticed the damage to the vehicle. In fact the FIR ( Ex P-1) was registered only on 21.12.2013 i.e., five days after the accident and the offending vehicle was submitted to the Motor Vehicle inspector examination only on 29.12.2013 i.e., 14 days after the accident and the MVI report Ex P-5 does not indicate any new damage to the vehicle. In fact the FIR ( Ex P-1) was registered only on 21.12.2013 i.e., five days after the accident and the offending vehicle was submitted to the Motor Vehicle inspector examination only on 29.12.2013 i.e., 14 days after the accident and the MVI report Ex P-5 does not indicate any new damage to the vehicle. Without proper appreciation of these facts, the tribunal erred in holding the Insurance Company liable to indemnify the vehicle owner for the tortuous act of his driver though there was no privity of contract between the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle. 7. The learned counsel for the claimant/1st respondent herein submitted that, Ex P-3 insurance policy is the xerrox copy of the insurance cover issued by the appellant company. A sum of Rs.13,476/- collected as premium by its broker Lotus Agencies and certificate issued to the vehicle owner Balasubramani. The commencement of insurance from 20.01 hrs. From 14.12.2013 till midnight on 13.12.2014. Even assuming the policy certificate is fake, since it has emanated from the lawful agent of the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company is liable for the act of its agent. 8. The case of the claimant is that he met with the accident on 16.12.2013 at about 11.00 a.m., and he was taken to the Srinivasa Speciality Hospital, Hosur and admitted as inpatient from 16.12.2013 to 20.12.2013. In the FIR - Ex P-3 given by the wife of the claimant on 21.12.2013, she has stated that since her husband was hosptialised she could not give the complaint immediately. The offending vehicle produced to the Motor Vehicle Inspector along with requisition only on 29.12.2013 at 4.00 p.m., EX P-5, the MVI had recorded no fresh damages noticed. The insurance policy produced by the claimant is marked as Ex P- 3. The insurance policy produced by the Insurance Company is marked as Ex R-1. The receipt for the premium is marked as Ex R-2. 9. The comparison of Ex P-3 and Ex R-1, the difference is easily notable. In the policy certificate produced by the claimant the seal and signature of the Insurance Company is missing. The claimant from whose possession Ex P-3 is produced and marked is bound to explain about it. In the cross examination when he was confronted that the dates in the policy certificate produced by him has been altered, the claimant has expressed his ignorance and not explained. The claimant from whose possession Ex P-3 is produced and marked is bound to explain about it. In the cross examination when he was confronted that the dates in the policy certificate produced by him has been altered, the claimant has expressed his ignorance and not explained. The Insurance Company by producing the policy certificate Ex.R-1 and the Receipt Ex.R-2 had proved to the core that the offending vehicle was insured with them only on 16.12.2013 at 20.01 hrs., and the certificate was generated next day in the system with time stamp 09.56; 17.12.2013. Receipt for receiving Rs.13,476/- towards the insurance premium issued on 17.12.2013. 10. It is unfortunate that the tribunal without considering the evidence which palpable prove that the offending vehicle was not under insurance with the appellant company at the time of accident and the policy certificate Ex.P-3 produced by the claimant is a fake document, for extraneous reasons has overlooked the overwhelming evidence and had entertained the claim petition against the insurance company which had no privity of contract with the owner of the offending vehicle on and at the time of the accident. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company – vs- Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi and other,( 1997 ACJ 351 ) under similar facts, had held that if the insurance cover is proved to be renewed after the accident, then the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the vehicle owner. The claimant cannot seek compensation from insurer of the vehicle but can proceed against the owner of the vehicle. 12. Following the said dictum, this Court allow the appeal. The Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability to compensate the claimant. The owner of the offending vehicle alone is responsible to pay the compensation to the claimant and the Insurance Company is under no legal or contractual obligation to indemnify him. The claimant (first respondent herein) is at liberty to proceed against the offending vehicle owner (second respondent herein) for the recovery of the award amount. 13. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.