The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a completed contract, including premium payment, between the insurer and the insured as mandated by Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, to bind the insurer for compensation in case of an accident.

( 1 ) THE appellant-Oriental Insurance Company being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award passed by the M. A. C. T. , Metropolitan Area, bangalore City, in M. V. C. 1585/88 on 13-8-1980, has come up before this Court in these Appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the 'act' ).

( 2 ) THEE appellant has sought for setting aside the findings recorded by the Tribunal in regard to the liability of the Insurer to make good the compensation, on more than one ground.

( 3 ) THE undisputed facts as borne out of the records are that the tractor and trailor bearing registration No. MEZ 6506 and 6507 respectively belonging to Nanjegowda, one of the respondents herein, dashed against the Scooter from behind on Bangalore-Bellary road on 5-7-1988 at 7. 00 a. m. causing injuries to the rider and the pillion rider of the scooter. The rider husband of R-1, succumbed to the injuries, later Rukmini Bai, R-1 and her two minor children along with the parents of the deceased filed claim in M. V. C. No. 1584/ 1988, whereas R-1 herself filed claim petition M. V. C. No. 1585/ 1988 for the injuries sustained by her. The Tribunal having considered the evidence on record awarded compensation of Rs. 1,29,500/- in MVC 1584/ 1988 and Rs. 22,400/- in the other case with a direction to the appellant herein to pay the entire amount of compensation awarded. Hence these appeals.

( 4 ) WE have heard Sri S. P. Shankar, learned Counsel for the Insurer, who having taken us through the relevant portion of the Judgment and the evidence recorded by the Tribunal, urged that at the outset Ex. R-I covering note purporting to cover the risk arising out of the tractor-trailor in question was a fraudulent and concocted document entered into between one Srinivasaiah, alleged Agent of the appellant, and the owner of the vehicle Nanjegodwa, in order to escaping latter's liability arising out of the accident in question. According to him, no policy covering the vehicle was issued prior to the date of the accident by the appellant and it came to know only on receipt of the notice from the Court that that cover note was issued by the said Agent on 3-7-1988 to make believe that the vehicle was covered by Insurance on the date of the accident. The learned counsel further, submitted that that Agent was engaged by, the appellant temporarily as a part time Agent and soon after the appellant came to know of the fraudulent creation of Ex. R-1 he was removed from service.

( 5 ) BE that as it may, to find out whether the tractor and trailer were in fact insured with the appellant as on the date of the accident, this Court by an order dated 17-2-1992 directed the Tribunal to hold an enquiry and record its finding on the above question. Accordingly, the Tribunal held a detailed enquiry and passed an order on 19-8-1992 answering the question in the affirmative. Accordingly, it submitted the records to this Court.

( 6 ) SRI S. P. Shankar, learned Counsel for the appellant, argued that the finding recorded by the Tribunal in para 33 on the question of the liability arising out of Ex. R1 that the liability could be fastened against Insurer is wholly incorrect and erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. The legal argument advanced by Sri S. Y. Shankar, in support of the Appeal is that in the absence of a completed contract between the Insurer and the Insured as required by Section 64vb of the Insurance Act, the Court cannot act upon the cover note, Ex. RI, to fasten the liability on the Insurer. According to him, the contract was not complete as on the date of the accident and mere issue of a cover note by the Agent of the Insurer cannot amount to a contract between the Insurer and the Insured.

( 7 ) ANOTHER contention of Sri S. P. Shankar, learned counsel for the Insurer, is that as held by this court and the Supreme Court in more than one case, unless a receipt is produced showing payment of premium in respect of a vehicle for cove