T. Vaiphei, J.

1. This miscellaneous appeal under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') is directed against the judgment dated 19.7.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Shillong in M.A.C. No. 18 of 1999 awarding a compensation of Rs. 5,40,000 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum in favour of the claimant-respondent for the death of her sister due to a vehicular accident.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that on 10.11.1998 at about 6.10 p.m., one local taxi bearing registration number ML-05-A-9688 was proceeding from Laitumkhrah to lewduh and on reaching near N.E.C. Secretariat, it collided with a truck bearing registration number AS-25-A-3479. As a result of the accident, three occupants of the taxi, namely, Md. Lamer Sohtun, the driver of the taxi, Smt. Lovely Passah and Shri Ferdinand Sohtun, co-passengers, were grievously injured. The said Lovely Passah died instantaneously on the spot. The surviving victims were then taken to Civil Hospital, Shillong for medical treatment. The claimant accordingly filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation by impleading the owner and driver of the taxi, the insurer of the taxi owner and driver of the truck as well as the insurer of the truck party-respondents. The owner of the taxi as well as the insurer of the taxi contested the claim petition by filing their respective written statements. The insurer of the truck also contested the claim petition by filing its written statement. It appears that the remaining respondents did not contest the claim petition. On the pleadings of the contesting parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the claim petition is maintainable in its present form?

2. Whether the insurance policy of the truck No. AS-25-A-3479 is a fake policy?

3. Whether the Insurance Co. of the Taxi ML-05-9688 is liable to pay compensation?

4. What are the relief/reliefs the claimant is entitled to?

3. To prove her case, the claimant examined four witnesses including herself as CW1 while the. insurer-respondent No. 6 examined one witness to defend its case. At the conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment. On Issue No. 2, the Tribunal held that the insurance policy marked "X" is not a genuine document as the record produced by the insurer-respondent No. 6 clearly disproved its genuineness. On Issue No. 3, the finding of the Tribunalis that the vehicular accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck and not due to the driver of the. taxi and that the owner of the taxi was not liable to pay the compensation. On Issue No. 4, the Tribunal took the view that as the National Insurance Co. and owner of the taxi are not liable to pay the compensation, the compensation awarded should be satisfied by the owner of the offending truck. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver of the taxi was not responsible for the accident, is not called into question by the appellant. None of the contesting parties also dispute the quantum of compensation so awarded. The only question which falls for consideration is whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that the insurance policy in respect of the offending truck produced by the claimant-appellant is a fake policy.

4. It is contended by Mr. S.K. Deb Purkayastha that the Tribunal grossly erred in law in holding that the certificate of insurance issued by the respondent No. 6 is a fake policy only on the basis of the evidence of one of the witnesses from their Guwahati Office when the Certificate of Insurance had been issued from their Kolkata Office: they ought to have examined the officials of their Kolkata Branch and produced there from documentary evidence to prove that the said Certificate was duly insured there. According to the learned Counsel, the Tribunal has completely overlooked the evidence of the Investigating Officer, who was examined as CW No. (3), that he had seized the original poli