JUDGMENT : These appeals are at the instance of the insurance company calling in question the award dated 04.11.2008 passed in WC Nos.369, 370, 371, 372 of 2005 by the learned Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Koppal (for short, ‘Commissioner’). 2. Brief facts are that these claimants were working as Hamalies in a tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA.37/TRM/584/KPL/0405 owned by respondent No.1/Sadiqu Ali and insured with appellant herein. On 09.02.2005 as per the instruction of respondent No.1, the claimants were proceeding in the said tractor and trailer as Hamalie and the tractor and trailer met with an accident and claimants suffered grievous injuries. 3. In the proceedings before the learned Commissioner, respondent No.1/Insured filed written statement admitting employer and employee relationship. He has also set up a defence that valid policy of insurance was in currency and therefore, liability is required to be reimbursed by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2/Insurer contested the proceedings by filing written statement contending that there was no policy coverage from the appellant. 4. During the enquiry, claimants examined themselves as witnesses and also a qualified medical practitioner was examined as witness for them, and got marked Exs.P1 to P18. Respondent No.2 examined one of its officials as R.W.1 and policy of insurance was marked as Ex.R2(1). 5. Upon consideration of the materials produced and the evidence let in, learned Commissioner answered all the points for consideration in favour of the claimants and against the appellant herein and he awarded a compensation of Rs.1,36,653/to claimant Balesab. Rs.99,541/to claimant Siddik Sab and Rs.1,20,960/to claimant Honnursab, Rs.81,496/to claimant Pashavali with interest thereon at 12% p.a.. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company contended that there was no policy coverage for the tractor and trailer in question at the time of the accident and therefore, appellant is not liable to reimburse the compensation. He submits that Ex.R.2(1) clearly shows that it was issued for the period commencing from 28.02.2005 to 27.02.2006. He further submits that accident had taken placed on 09.02.2005. He submits that cover note produced by the claimant Ex.P.7 is fraudulent document. He therefore submits that the appeal is liable to be allowed and the award insofar as the appellant is concerned is required to be set aside. 7. He further submits that accident had taken placed on 09.02.2005. He submits that cover note produced by the claimant Ex.P.7 is fraudulent document. He therefore submits that the appeal is liable to be allowed and the award insofar as the appellant is concerned is required to be set aside. 7. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 Sri.Hanumanthreddy Sahukar in MFA.No.21076/2009 submits that there was a valid policy coverage for the vehicle and therefore, the compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner is required to be reimbursed by appellant. He submits that the appeal should be dismissed. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel and I perused the records. 9. There is no dispute about employer and employee relationship between respondent No.1 and the claimants and further that the accident resulting in the injuries had taken place in the course of and arising out of the employment. 10. The only question that is required to be gone into in this appeal is whether there was valid policy coverage as on the date of the accident namely 9/2/2005. The appellant has examined one of its officials and got marked the policy of insurance as Ex.R.2(1) which clearly shows that it was for the period commencing from 28.02.2005 to midnight of 27.02.2006. The accident had taken place on 09.02.2005. The said document was marked through R.W.1 an official of the insurance company. The claimants have not suggested to this witness during the cross examination that there was a cover note issued by appellant. It is the case of the claimant that as per EX.P.7, cover note was issued on 09.02.2005 at 10.30 a.m. covering the risk from that time upto 08.02.2006. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that this is a fraudulent document and bears no seal of the company. He further draws my attention to Rules 5 and 6 of the Motor Vehicles Third Party Insurance Rules, 1946. 11. Rules 5 and 6 reads as under: Rules 5 and 6 reads as under: 5. Cover-notes. (1) Every policy in the form of a cover-note issued by an insurer shall be in Form B Set out in the Schedule to these rules. (2) A cover-note referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be valid for a period of fifteen days from the date of its issue. Cover-notes. (1) Every policy in the form of a cover-note issued by an insurer shall be in Form B Set out in the Schedule to these rules. (2) A cover-note referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be valid for a period of fifteen days from the date of its issue. If, for any reasons, the insurer is not able to issue a policy during that period, the validity of a cover-note shall be extended for a further period of fifteen days at a time but in no case the total period of validity of a cover note shall exceed two months. 6. Issue of certificates and cover notes.(1) Every certificate of insurance or cover-note issued by an insurer in compliance with these rules shall be duly authenticated by or on behalf of the insurer by whom it is issued. (2) The certificate of insurance aforesaid shall be issued (1) in the case of policies which are in force on 1s t July, 1946, on or before that date; (b) in any other case on or before the date on which the policy is issued or renewed. This sub-rule shall not apply to certificates of insurance issued in pursuance of the provisions of rule 8 of these rules. 12. Rule 5 clearly states that cover note cannot be issued for a period exceeding two months. As per Ex.P.7, the cover note purports to cover the risk for a whole year, namely from 09.02.2005 to 08.02.2006 which clearly shows that it is a fraudulent document. 13. Rule 6 makes it clear that even cover note issued by insurance company should be duly authenticated by or on behalf of the insurer by whom it is issued. There is no seal on Ex.P.7 authenticating it as having been issued by the insurer. 14. The above clearly shows that Ex.P.7 is a created document and therefore, the learned Commissioner ought not to have placed reliance on that for holding that there was policy coverage at the time of the accident. The very circumstance that this cover note purports to cover the risk with effect from, 10.35 a.m. from 09.02.2005 which is the date of the accident should have alerted the learned Commissioner to examine it more closely by looking for a seal or other official mark regarding its authenticity. The policy of coverage issued under Ex.R.2(1) covers the risk only with effect from 28.02.2005. The policy of coverage issued under Ex.R.2(1) covers the risk only with effect from 28.02.2005. Therefore, it is evident that there was no policy coverage as on 09.02.2005 when accident took place and if that is so, the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability to reimburse the compensation. Accordingly, this appeal is entitled to succeed and hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeals are allowed. ii) The awards dated 04.11.2008 passed in WC Nos.369, 370, 371, 372 of 2005 by the learned Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Koppal are set aside insofar as the liability to pay compensation by the appellant is concerned. iii) The amount in deposit, if any shall be refunded to the appellant/insurance company.