JUDGMENT : By way of this appeal, the appellant assails the Award passed by the Court of learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-II, Shimla, Camp at Rohru, in M.A.C. Petition No.2R/ 2 of 2014, titled Subhadra Devi & others Versus Vidash & another, decided on 18.03.2017, in terms whereof, the Claim Petition preferred by the claimants therein was decided by learned Tribunal by awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.18,45,000/alongwith interest in favour of the claimants. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the claimants approached learned Tribunal, praying for grant of compensation, on the ground that deceased Shri Mela Ram, who was predecessor-in-interest of the claimants, lost his life in an accident on 22.07.2013, while travelling in Mahendra Pickup bearing registration No. HP 10B0378, in which vehicle he was travelling in his capacity as the owner of the apple boxes. At the time of accident he was returning back after selling the apple boxes in Parwanoo Mandi. As per the claimants, the age of the deceased was thirty eight years and his monthly income was Rs.40,000/per month. Accordingly, a prayer was made for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/in favour of the claimants. 3. The Claim Petition was opposed by the respondents therein, i.e. the owner of the vehicle and the present appellant, which was impleaded as respondent No.2 in the Claim Petition. Respondent No.2/owner before the learned Tribunal, inter alia, while denying the claim, took the stand that the accident was not caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver and further that in fact the respondent was not owner of the vehicle at the time when the accident took place. The petition was opposed by the appellant/Insurance Company, inter alia, on the ground that the factum of the offending vehicle being insured with the Insurance Company was not admitted. 4. The Claim Petition was allowed by the learned Tribunal as already mentioned hereinabove by awarding an amount of Rs.18,45,000/as compensation in favour of the claimants alongwith costs and interest. As the quantum of the Award is not the subject matter of the present appeal, therefore, the Court is not dwelling any further on this aspect of the matter. The appeal against the Award has been preferred by the Insurance Company as learned Tribunal also ordered that respondent No.2 being insurer had to indemnify the Award. 5. As the quantum of the Award is not the subject matter of the present appeal, therefore, the Court is not dwelling any further on this aspect of the matter. The appeal against the Award has been preferred by the Insurance Company as learned Tribunal also ordered that respondent No.2 being insurer had to indemnify the Award. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the Award passed by the learned Tribunal to the extent that the appellant has been burdened with the liability of indemnifying the Award is on the face of it perverse, for the reason that there was not even an iota of evidence placed on record either by the claimants or respondent No.1 before the learned Tribunal that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. By referring to the record of the learned Tribunal, learned counsel has argued that the perversity in the Award is writ large on the face of it from the fact that the purported exhibit which has been construed to be the insurance of the vehicle in issue, i.e. Ext.RW2/A, in fact neither pertains to the appellant/Insurance Company, nor it is relatable to the date of the accident. On this short count, he argued that the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the Award passed by learned Tribunal to the extent the liability has been fastened upon the Insurance Company is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the basis of the documents on record though have not been able to controvert what learned counsel for the appellant has argued, but they have submitted that a close perusal of the reply filed by the appellant-Company before the learned Tribunal demonstrates that this plea was never taken. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the Award under challenge as well as the record of the case. 9. Learned Tribunal for the purposes of deciding the Claim Petition, framed the following issues “1. Whether on 22.07.2013, deceased Mela Ram died on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle Pick Up bearing registration No.HP10B0378 being driven by late Sunil, as alleged? .. OPP. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation amount, if so, from whom and what extent? .. OPP 3. Whether on 22.07.2013, deceased Mela Ram died on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle Pick Up bearing registration No.HP10B0378 being driven by late Sunil, as alleged? .. OPP. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation amount, if so, from whom and what extent? .. OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? .. OPR 1 and 2 4. Whether the amount of compensation claim is highly exaggerated, as alleged? .. OPR1 5. Whether the vehicle was being driven without any valid driving licence, route permit and fitness certificate at the time of accident, as alleged? .. OPR2 6. Whether deceased Mela Ram was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle, as alleged? .. OPR2 7. Whether the petitioners have no cause of action to file the claim petition against respondent no.2, as alleged? .. OPR2 8. Relief.” 10. Now, while answering issue No.2, after concluding as to what amount the claimants were entitled to, learned Tribunal thereafter held that respondent No.2 being insurer of the offending vehicle shall indemnify this Award as the ill-fated vehicle at the time of accident was insured with respondent No.2 vide insurance Ext.RW2/A, w.e.f. 13.05.2014 to 12.05.2015. When these findings are compared with the record of the case, the conclusion is inevitable that these findings are completely perverse. It is not in dispute that the accident took place on 22.07.2013, in which the predecessor-in-interest of the claimants lost his life. That being the case, it is not understood as to how an Insurance Policy, currency of which was from 13.05.2014 to 12.05.2015 could have been construed to be an Insurance Policy insuring the vehicle as on the date when the accident took place. This demonstrates that there was a complete non-application of judicial mind by the learned Tribunal. The story does not ends here only. Learned Tribunal further erred in not appreciating that whereas the nomenclature of respondent No.2/Insurance Company impleaded as a party respondent in the Claim Petition was the National Insurance Company Limited, The Mall Shimla, Ext.RW2/A was issued by one Future General Insurance Company which was not a party before learned Trial. The story does not ends here only. Learned Tribunal further erred in not appreciating that whereas the nomenclature of respondent No.2/Insurance Company impleaded as a party respondent in the Claim Petition was the National Insurance Company Limited, The Mall Shimla, Ext.RW2/A was issued by one Future General Insurance Company which was not a party before learned Trial. Therefore, reliance upon Ext.RW2/A by learned Tribunal for holding that it was the Insurance Company which was liable to indemnify the claimants is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the present appeal is therefore, liable to be allowed on this short count. Ordered accordingly. 11. This appeal is accordingly allowed. The Award passed by learned Tribunal is set aside to the extent, it held the appellant liable to indemnify the Award. The liability to indemnify the claim shall be that of the respondent/owner. Remaining part of the Award is not disturbed. The amount which has been deposited by the appellant be refunded back to the learned counsel for the appellant/Company in its account, details whereof be provided by the learned counsel with the Registry of this Court. The appeal stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.