JUDGMENT : This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’) against the Judgment and Award dated 30.03.2021 in M.A.C.T. Case No. 60 of 2017 passed by the Member-cum-Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Aizawl, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,83,600/-(Rupees Six lakhs eighty three thousand and six hundred )only along with an interest at 7% p.a. 2. Heard Mr. Roshan Subedi, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. L.H. Lianhrima learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1 assisted by Miss Ruth Lalruatfeli, as well as Mr. Lalremruata, counsel for the respondent No.2/Claimant. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the Claimant (Respondent No.1 in the instant appeal) herein filed the said MACT Case No. 60/2017 against the Opposite party No.1 (respondent No.2 in the instant case/owner of the vehicle Truck) and Opposite Party No.2 (Appellant in the instant case). In the said MACT Case No. 60/2017, the Claimant/Respondent No.1 made a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for grant of compensation for the death of her son in accident which occurred on 30.11.2016.Her son being a pillion rider was proceeding from Chanmari towards Zarkawt in a motor bike B/R No.Mz-01 J-5293 driven by K. Lalhmingthanga which collided with another bike and her son Lalnunsanga fell on the road and was ran over by the Truck B/R No. MZ-01 G-7718 owned by the respondent No.2 herein resulting to the death of her son on the spot. 4. The appellant had previously filed an appeal before this Court numbered as MAC Appeal No. 19/2019 and the same was disposed of on 26.07.2019 by remanding the matter back to the MACT, Aizawl for Trial Denovo. Thereafter, the a fresh trial was held in Case No. 60 of 2017 and after the pleadings from all the parties were submitted, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues : (i) whether the present claim application is maintainable in its present form and style ? (ii) whether the claimants is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what extend and who is liable to pay? (iii) whether the policy on which the claim is based upon is a fake policy document ? (Issue added after the matter was remanded back by this Court, Aizawl Bench for Denovo Trial). 5. (ii) whether the claimants is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what extend and who is liable to pay? (iii) whether the policy on which the claim is based upon is a fake policy document ? (Issue added after the matter was remanded back by this Court, Aizawl Bench for Denovo Trial). 5. That during the course of the proceeding the claimant had produced 1(one) witness i.e., herself only. The appellant and the respondent No.2 herein also produced one witness namely Shri Tathagata Banerjee. 6. That after hearing the parties and considering the available evidences, the Ld. Member-cum-Presiding Officer, MACT, Aizawl passed the Judgment & Award dated 30.03.2021 whereby the Appellant/OP No. 2 was held liable and accordingly ordered to pay a compensation to the respondent No.1/Claimant amounting to Rs.6,83,600/-(Rupees Six Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand and Six Hundred only) with 7% interest from the date of filing i.e., 04.10.2017. 7. That being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment & Award dated 30.03.2021 in MACT Case No. 60 of 2017 the appellant has preferred this instant appeal on the following inter alia grounds : (i) that the alleged held cover note letter number SBI/GHY/23122011/0000093 as mentioned in the claim petition and exhibited before the Tribunal is found to be fake cover letter and no policy was issued against the aforesaid fake cover letter and that the appellant herein submits that as per the provisions of section 64V(b) of Insurance Act, 1938, no risk on the part of insurer commences unless the premium in full is paid in advance by the insured as such there is no liability on the part of the appellant. Despite this, the Ld. Tribunal discarded the evidence and the materials available on record submitted by the parties and illegally proceeded to make the impugned Judgment & Award dated 30.03.2021 in favour of the Respondent No. 1/Claimant. (ii) that the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl could not have awarded Rs.6,83,600/- in a case filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The calculation of compensation made by the Ld. Tribunal is contradictory to the Notification of “MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS” bearing no. S.O. 2022(E) for the compensation claimed under section 163A of M.V. Act. As such, the impugned Judgment and Award dated 30.03.2021 is liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. The learned Sr. The calculation of compensation made by the Ld. Tribunal is contradictory to the Notification of “MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS” bearing no. S.O. 2022(E) for the compensation claimed under section 163A of M.V. Act. As such, the impugned Judgment and Award dated 30.03.2021 is liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. The learned Sr. counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the claim of the appellant that the cover note letter number SBI/GHY/23122011/0000093 is found to be fake and no policy was issued against the aforesaid fake cover letter has no basis and cannot be accepted since no evidence was adduced to prove the same. The onus lies on the Insurance Company to prove their claim. That no FIR has been submitted against the alleged fake policy. That the Notification of “MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS” bearing no. S.O. 2022(E) for the compensation claimed under section 163A of M.V. Act was issued on 22.05.2018 but the date of the accident was on 30.11.2016 therefore the notification is not applicable in this case. That there is no infirmity in the calculation of the award by the learned Tribunal. The learned Sr. counsel for the respondent has relied on the Apex Courts decisions in Dayamathi Bai (Smt) Vs. K.M. Shaffi reported in (2004) 7 SCC 107 para 13, Iqbal Basith and others Vs. N. Subbalakshmi and Others reported in (2021) 2 SCC 718 para 13, Krishna Mohan Kul alias Nani Charan Kul and Another Vs. Pratima Maity and others reported in (2004) 9 SCC 468 para 12. 9. Having considered the submissions of both the parties it seen that the Apex court in Krishna Mohan Kul alias Nani Charan Kul and Another Vs. Pratima Maity and others (supra) held that “when fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence is alleged by a party in a suit, normally, the burden is on him to prove such fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation”. 10. In view of the above the onus is on the appellant to show that the policy is fake thus the evidence adduced the appellate before the tribunal is examined. It is seen that only one witness was produced by the Appellant, Mr. Tathagata Banerjee who is an official of the Appellant Insurance Co. 10. In view of the above the onus is on the appellant to show that the policy is fake thus the evidence adduced the appellate before the tribunal is examined. It is seen that only one witness was produced by the Appellant, Mr. Tathagata Banerjee who is an official of the Appellant Insurance Co. in his examination in chief has stated that the alleged cover note letter number SBI/GHY/23122011/0000093 and exhibited before the Tribunal is found to be fake cover letter and no policy was issued against the aforesaid fake cover letter. The official witness however goes on to state he has no personal knowledge of the case as he joined his service before the occurrence of the accident. During cross examination he has further admitted that there are no details showing the difference between the original cover note and the alleged fake cover note letter number SBI/GHY/23122011/0000093. No comparison is drawn that reflects upon the difference of a genuine insurance policy and the alleged fake policy produced by the claimant. The witness has also admitted that no legal action has been taken with regards to the ‘fake policy’ and no FIR has been submitted. Thus the witness did not lead any evidence to prove that the cover note letter number SBI/GHY/23122011/0000093 is found fake. I thus find that the ‘fake Policy’ is not proved in the present case by any evidence whatsoever and the liability of the Insurance Company cannot be denied about payment of the claim amount to the claimant. 11. In view of the above, I find no grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned tribunal that the Insurance Company has failed to establish that the Insurance Policy is fake. 12. With regards to the compensation amount of Rs.6,83,600/-(Rupees Six Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand and Six Hundred only) with 7% interest from the date of filing i.e., 04.10.2017.awarded by the learned trial court, calculated as per the Schedule in the Act and the decisions of the Apex Court, it is seen that the claimant had made the claim under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Notification of “MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS” bearing No. S.O. 2022(E) for the compensation claimed under section 163A of M.V. Act wherein the amount has been laid down for awarding compensation under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988was notified on 22.05.2018 while the date of the accident was on 30.11.2016 and nothing about retrospective effect is mentioned in the notification, therefore, it can be logically inferred that the notification dated22.05.2018 is not applicable in this case. 13. Upon appreciation of the evidence adduced and materials on record, I am of the considered view that the appeal is without any merit. 14. For the aforesaid reasons Mac. App 6 of 2021 is dismissed and accordingly stands disposed of. 15. The claimant/respondent No.1 shall thus be entitled to withdraw the statutory deposit of Rs.25000/- deposited by the appellant before the Registry of this court which shall accordingly be deducted from the final award to be paid to the claimant/respondent No.1 in terms of the Judgment and award dated 30.03.2021 in M.A.C.T. Case No. 60 of 2017 passed by the Member-cum-Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Aizawl. 16. Registry to send back the LCR forthwith.