ORDER : Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1.Appellant- Insurance company is in appeal against the award of compensation dated 23.09.2014 passed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act by Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, in Compensation Case No.100(T)/2001, whereby and whereunder liability to pay the compensation is fixed on the insurance company. 2. The main ground taken in the instant appeal is that the offending vehicle being a Maruti Omni bearing registration no. WB-02B-6254 was not under the insurance cover at the relevant time of accident which took place on 30 th November, 2000 3.It is contended that the insurance policy was for one month and the same was valid from 14.03.2000 to 13.04.2000 and there was no insurance cover of the vehicle at the time of accident. 4. In support of this contention, the learned counsel specifically relies on Ext. A, B, and Z Series. Exhibit A is the original report under Section 64 VB regarding payment of policy of premium of Rs. 106/- paid by cheque. Exhibit B is the letter issued by the Senior Divisional Manager of National Insurance Company Limited, Kolkata addressed to the National Insurance Company Limited, Jharkhand, Legal Cell, wherein, it has been stated that vehicle no. WB-02B-6254 was under insurance cover from 13.03.2000 to 12.04.2000 vide policy No. 101500/1999 on the basis of proposal form after collecting Rs. 106/- towards one month premium. Further, reliance is placed on photocopy of certificate of insurance marked as Z/3 for identification which also shows the period of insurance from 13.03.2000 to 12.04.2000. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent-claimant(s) that learned Tribunal has discussed at length in paras 16 to 18 of the judgment the reasons for not accepting this contention. Claimant had filed xerox copy of the insurance policy which was marked as Exhibit X/1 and it shows that cover no. 157065 regaof Rs. 400/- as the premium covering third party insurance valid from 14.03.2000 to 13.04.2000. Exhibit A and B were not relied upon by the Tribunal for the reason that policy was issued one day before the cover note of the policy. 6. Furthermore, the cheque was of dated 24.03.2000 and it was encashed on 28.03.2000, meaning thereby, much after the said issuance of cover note and also the policy. Exhibit A and B were not relied upon by the Tribunal for the reason that policy was issued one day before the cover note of the policy. 6. Furthermore, the cheque was of dated 24.03.2000 and it was encashed on 28.03.2000, meaning thereby, much after the said issuance of cover note and also the policy. Further, the proposal form was filled up on14.03.2000 while the policy was issued on 13.03.2000. 7.The sequence of event exposes the falsity of these documents as OP- witness no. 1 was a Law Officer of the insurance company who has stated that the cover note was valid for the period of two months i.e., sixty days the case of the OP that policy was issued for just 30 days. 8. Having heard the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, indisputably the accident took place on 30.11.2000 by Maruti Omni bearing Registration No. WB-02B-6254. Appellant deny the insurance of the vehicle at the time of the accident, on the basis of Exhibit A is regarding payment of premium of Rs. 106/- for policy issued on 13.03.2000, but cover note issued on 14.03.2000. Exhibit B is the letter issued by the Senior Divisional Manager of National Insurance Company Limited, Kolkata addressed to the National Insurance Company Limited, Jharkhand, Legal Cell, wherein, it has been stated that vehicle no. WB-02B-6254 was under insurance cover from 13.03.2000 to 12.04.2000 vide policy No. 101500/1999 on the basis of proposal form after collecting Rs. 106/- towards one month premium. Further, reliance is placed on photocopy of certificate of insurance marked as Z/3 for identification which also shows the period of insurance from 13.03.2000 to 12.04.2000. 9. Claimant on their part have led no evidence except the photo copy of the Insurance Policy which has been marked as X/1 according to it the validity of insurance was from 14.03.2000 to 13.03.2001. Learned Tribunal declined to rely on the Ext-A, because of vital discrepancies, wherein the date of filling of proposal form was 14.03.2000, whereas date of issuance of policy was 13.03.2000 and the cheque was encashed on 28.03.2000. Tribunal rightly took note of the anomaly in the date of filling of the proposal form, encashment of the cheque against payment of premium and the date when the policy was issued. I do not find any cogent and persuasive reason to differ with the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. Tribunal rightly took note of the anomaly in the date of filling of the proposal form, encashment of the cheque against payment of premium and the date when the policy was issued. I do not find any cogent and persuasive reason to differ with the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. Statutory amount be remitted to the Tribunal to be disbursed along with compensation to the claimant.