REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by M/s New India Assurance Company Limited against the judgment and award of the Claims Tribunal, Delhi dated 02.11.2006 whereby the learned Claims Tribunal passed an award in the sum of Rs.10,25,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization in favour of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 with a direction to the Insurance Company to pay the same within 30 days of the passing of the award.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the claim petition as set out in the claim petition are that on 29.03.2001, the respondent No.1/claimant alongwith his wife, Smt. Jasmeet Kaur and son, Charanjit Singh on his arrival at the New Delhi Railway Station from Punjab, boarded an auto-rickshaw bearing No. DL-1RE-1603 from New Delhi Railway Station to his house at Tilak Nagar. At about 5.45 a.m. when it reached Patel Nagar, the auto-rickshaw, which was being driven rashly and negligently and at a high speed, turned turtle resulting in all the aforesaid persons sustaining grievous injuries. Smt. Jasmeet Kaur succumbed to the said injuries almost immediately thereafter.

3. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are the legal representatives of the deceased, Smt. Jasmeet Kaur. The respondent No.4, Sh. Ashok Kumar is the auto-rickshaw driver, who is the principal tort feasor in the instant incident. The respondent No.5, Ashok Jain is the previous owner and the respondent No.6, Sh. Sanjay Gupta @ Sanju is the present owner of the aforesaid auto-rickshaw. The respondents No.4, 5 and 6 as well as the appellant were duly served with the notice of the filing of the claim petition and contested the case before the Claims Tribunal.

4. A joint written statement was filed by the respondents No.4 to 6 in which it was stated that the accident had taken place on account of a cow having come in front of the scooter and the sudden application of brakes by the driver to avoid a major accident. The appellant – Insurance Company filed a written statement, which it subsequently amended to take the defence that the respondent No.4 – driver was not holding a valid or effective driving licence and, as such, though the offending vehicle was insured with it vide policy No.311401/31/00/07155 valid from 27.03.2001 to 26.03.2002, it was not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents No.1 to 3/claimants as per the terms and conditions of the policy.

5. The learned Claims Tribunal held the respondent No.4 guilty of rash and negligent driving and concluded that the respondent No.4 being the driver, the respondent No.5 being the owner and the respondent No.6 being the present owner of the offending vehicle were jointly and severally liable to make payment of compensation to the claimants. As the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company was directed to make payment of compensation.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid direction of the Tribunal to make payment of compensation to the respondents No.1 to 3, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal for setting aside the award of the Claims Tribunal. Mr. L.K. Tyagi, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has assailed the order of the Tribunal mainly on two grounds. The first ground is that the TSR in question was falsely implicated by the claimants after over four months of the accident in collusion with the respondents No. 4 to 6 viz., the driver and owners of the TSR. It is submitted that the FIR lodged by the son of the deceased (the respondent No.2 herein) did not disclose the number of the vehicle. On the other hand, after four months were over, on 18.07.2001, the respondent No.1, Sh. Manjit Singh went to the police station alongwith the driver and owner of the TSR in question and disclosed the number of TSR. It is further submitted that the claimants have not satisfactorily explained as to how and in what circumstances they got the number of the TSR after four months, when it was not available