The main legal point established in the judgment is that the validity of the insurance cover on the offending vehicle at the time of the accident is crucial in determining the liability of the insurer to compensate the claimants.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`the Act') for setting aside the award dated 21.12.2012 (`Impugned Award') passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SE-01), Saket, New Delhi. Vide the impugned Award, learned Claims Tribunal was pleased to award a compensation of Rs.5,36,032/- along with an interest @ 9% per annum in favor of the Claimants (Respondent Nos.1 to 4) from the date of filing of the Claim petition till the date of issuance of notice under Order XXI Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. Learned Claims Tribunal further directed the Appellant herein to pay the said compensation amount at the first instance and granted recovery rights in favor of the Appellant against Respondent Nos.5 & 6 (Driver & Owner)

2. The Appellant herein is challenging the impugned award limited to their liability to pay the compensation, as according to the Appellant, the offending vehicle was not insured with them at the time of the accident. It is the case of the Appellant that the insurance policy produced by the Claimants was a forged document and hence the Appellant has no liability to pay the insured amount.

3. On 20.03.2000, the deceased was travelling in a two-wheeler bearing number DL 3 ST 5261 along with his two friends when he was intercepted by a TATA bus, driven by Shri Manoj Lal/Respondent No.5, bearing registration No. DL-lP-6419. The bus took a sudden right turn without any indication, as a result of which the scooter of the deceased collided with the offending bus. The said offending bus ran over the deceased and caused his sudden death. The deceased, Mr. Arvind Kumar was survived by his widow, minor son and his parents, who are the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the present appeal.

4. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 had approached the learned Claims Tribunal to raise their claims against the owner (Respondent No.6), driver (Respondent No.5) and insurer (Appellant) of the offending vehicle. As per the insurance policy produced by Respondent Nos.1 to 4, the said policy was valid till 11.04.2000.

5. The Appellant filed their written statement alleging that the insurance policy produced by the Claimants was a forged document. It was also alleged that on the forged cover note, the date of expiry of the insurance policy was mentioned as `11.04.2000' in order to cover the risk, i.e, the date of accident, 20.03.2000. According to the Appellant, Insurance Policy No. 354802/98/6703037 in respect of the offending vehicle (vehicle No. DL-1P-6419) was issued to Respondent No.6/Shri Ram Dutt Sharma for the period from 12.11.1998 to 11.11.1999 on a premium of Rs.9,415/-. The vehicle was under a hire purchase agreement with M/s. Basist Leasing & Financing Co. Ltd. from 20.04.1999. Hence, subsequent to the issuance of the original policy, Respondent No.6 had given a consent in writing to the Appellant for endorsing the word `Hire Purchase' in the policy. At the request of Respondent No.6, the Appellant issued a cover note bearing No. 863687 on 26.04.1999 for the period from 26.04.1999 to 11.11.1999 endorsing the word `Hire Purchase' therein. Thereafter, Respondent No.6 approached the Appellant on 28.04.1999 for conversion of `act only policy' to a `package policy'. In order to convert the same, the Appellant charged an additional insurance premium of Rs.2,317/-. Respondent No.6 submitted a cheque bearing No. 534767 for Rs.2,317/- for a period of 98 days (from 28.04.1999 to 11.11.1999). However, the said premium cheque issued had bounced and hence the said conversion of the insurance policy was cancelled vide policy cancellation letter dated 21.05.1999. According to the Appellant, the insurance policy was valid only till 11.11.1999 whereas the accident occurred on 20.03.2000. Hence, in view of the same, the Appellant submitted that it has no liability to pay compensation, as on the date of accident the offending vehicle was not insured w