JUDGMENT

Sanjay S Agrawal, J. - All these Appeals have been preferred by the Appellant/National Insurance Company Limited under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988'), which arise out of an accident occurred on 27.02.2011 and are being disposed of by this common order. The parties to these Appeals shall be referred hereinafter as per their description in the trial Court.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 27.02.2011 at about 10.00 p.m, deceased Salikram, while driving the tractor, was returning along with others from village Tilda and was hit vehemently when he reached near the village Chicholi from its opposite side by the offending vehicle 'truck', which was owned by Non-Applicant No.2, Gopi Nashine and was insured with NonApplicant No.3, National Insurance Company Limited (the Appellant herein). At the relevant time, the alleged offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver namely Thakur Lal Sahu, Non-Applicant No.1, as a result of which, said Salikram died on the spot, while others got injured badly.

3. On account of the aforesaid accident, the Claimants, being the legal representatives of the deceased Salikram, instituted a claim Petition under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.10,80,000/- under various heads by alleging inter alia that the deceased Salikram was a driver by profession and used to earn Rs.7,000/- per month. The said claim was registered as Claim Case No.77/2011, while the claim instituted by injured Udayram and Govindram were registered as Claim Case Nos. 78/2011 and 79/2011 respectively, wherein, they have claimed an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.4,30,000/- and Rs.2,60,000/- respectively.

4. Non-Applicant No.1, Thakur Lal Sahu, the driver of the offending vehicle was proceeded ex parte, while Non-Applicant No.2, Gopi Nashine, the owner of the offending vehicle has contested the claim on the ground that the deceased Salikram was himself responsible for the alleged accident and pleaded further that since the vehicle in question was insured with NonApplicant No.3, the National Insurance Company Limited, therefore, in case of any liability being fastened, the same could be indemnified by the said Company.

5. Non-Applicant No.3, the insurer of the offending vehicle, while questioning the issuance of the cover note dated 25.02.2011, contested the claim by submitting inter alia that neither the alleged cover note was issued from its Company nor any premium was collected therefrom. Alternatively, it is contended further that the driver of the alleged vehicle was not having the valid and effective driving license nor the vehicle in question was being used with a permit or the fitness certificate, therefore, no liability could be fastened upon the Company.

6. After considering the evidence led by the parties, it has been held by the Tribunal that the alleged accident occurred on 27.02.2011 due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, resulting in the sad demise of said Salikram, while Udayram and Govindram sustained simple injuries. It held further that the alleged cover note was issued by the Insurance Company while covering the risk of the insured Gopi Nashine and held further that the driver of it was holding the valid and effective driving license and the Claim Petitions have thus been allowed in part while fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company.

7. Being aggrieved, the Appellant/Insurance Company has preferred these Appeals. Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Insurance Company submits that the offending vehicle 'truck' was not insured with the Appellant/Insurance Company as neither the alleged cover note was issued nor any premium was collected by its Company. According to him, the alleged cover note was a forged and fictitious document and has been prepared in order to get an undue advantage of it. It is content