The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation when the vehicle involved in the accident was not under insurance coverage, and the owner of the vehicle is responsible for paying the compensation to the claimants.

Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.

Heard. Mr. K. K. Bhatta, learned counsel for appellant. Also heard Mr. R. L. Yadav and Ms. K. Yadav for the respondents.

2. Both the appeals arisen out of the common award dated 26.03.2010 passed in MAC Case No. 135/2002 and MAC Case No. 134/2002, accordingly both the appeals are taken together disposed of by this common order.

3. Brief case that can be recapitulated that on 23.09.2011 one Ajit Dey who was a broker of readymade garments boarded in a truck ASU-4039 along with goods and proceeded to Kanduli Market from Hojai and on 24.09.2001 at 01:30 am the said vehicle fell down in a turning resulting injury to the said person and he died. The wife of the said Ajit Dey, Smti. Sumitra Rani Dey preferred the claim petition claiming compensation for on behalf of old age father of the deceased as well as wife and three minor children who are all dependent upon him. The said claim case was registered MAC 134/2002.

4. On the other hand, the one of the injured Sanjib Debnath who also traveled in the said vehicle along with the said Ajit Dey also sustained injury in the said incident and hence preferred the claim petition for the injury he sustained which was registered as MAC Case NO. 135/2002.

5. In both the cases notice was issued to the respective owner, driver and the insurer of the vehicle. But only the insurance company contested the case by filing their written statement that the vehicle was not insured on the day of occurrence and as such the claimants are entitled the compensation as sought for. On the other hand, drive, owner of the vehicle did not contest the case despite service of notice so the case proceeded ex-parte against them.

6. Both the claimants examined themselves as witness in support of their respective claims and also produced relevant medical certificate and post-mortem examination in respect of injury and cause of death. The insurance company in support of their plea submitted their written statement that the vehicle was not insured at the relevant time as examined their witness who produced the certified copy of the insurance policy executed by the owner of the vehicle and also the letter of proposer as well as the receipt of case as against the insurance vide Ext-A is the certified copy of the insurance policy, Ext-B is the proposer letter, Ext-C is the receipt issued by the insurance company. It was their evidence that the vehicle was insured on 26.09.2001 whereas the occurrence took place on 24.09.2001 and as such the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured to pay compensation to the complainant as prayed for.

7. The Ld. Tribunal however rejecting the plea of the insurance company and by raising doubt about the due execution of such insurance policy, as the defence witness could not say about the proper identification of the proposer and as there was overlapping on a date in the insurance certificate, allowed both the claim petitions. The Ld. Tribunal was of opinion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid truck bearing registration ASU-4039 and the deceased Ajit Dey left several dependents directed the insurance company/appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs. 5,16,500/- as compensation to the claimant and the claimant Sanjib Debnath was awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,06,471/- for the injury sustained by him in the said accident. Apart from the compensation, the insurance Company also directed to pay the cost of Rs. 1,000/ each to both the complaints.

8. Raising the grievances that despite proving the facts by the insurance company that the vehicle was not insured on the fateful day, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation, the above two appeals have been preferred by the insurance company.

9. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the materials on record as well as the LCR received.

10. The limited question raised before this Court as to whether the insurance company is liabl