When a vehicle is proved not to have had a valid insurance policy at the time of an accident, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation. Fraudulent documents invalidate such claims, and the burden of proving valid coverage lies with the party seeking the claim.

JUDGMENT :

YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.

The instant appeal under section 173 of the Motors Vehicle Act (M.V. Act 1988 for short) has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 05.06.2015 passed by the learned Member, MACT-3 Kamrup in MAC Case No.718/2011 and the order dated 21.12.2015 passed in MISC Case No.14/2015.

2. By the impugned judgment 05.06.2015 the MACT has awarded compensation of Rs.12,77,00/- to the claimants as compensation on account of the death caused to the deceased husband of the claimant No.1 in a motor vehicle accident and the liability to pay such compensation has been fastened upon the appellant/Insurance Company. Thereafter, a Misc Case No.14/2015 was filed by the claimants praying for recovery of the awarded amount as the insurance company did not deposit the awarded amount even after the lapse of four months from the day of passing the judgment and award dated 05.06.2015. The appellant/insurance company also filed an affidavit in the Misc Case 14/2015 objecting to the deposit of the awarded amount as the date of accident was not covered by the alleged insurance policy and therefore the insurer was not liable to pay the compensation amount. However, the learned MACT dismissed the objection of the insurer on the ground that the insurance company should have proved the same during the trial.

3. Learned counsel Ms. R.D Mozumdar appearing for the insurance company submits that it is clearly established from the record that the insurance policy was effective only from 27.01.2011, whereas the accident occurred on 22.01.2011. Learned counsel states that this Court by order 17.07.2018 had had taken the view that in view of the allegations and counter allegations made by both the sides an opportunity should be given to adduce evidence in respect of the policy. The Trial Court record was sent to the Tribunal for allowing the parties to adduce additional evidence in respect of the policy. It was further directed that the Tribunal shall complete the process of taking evidence within 3 months from the date of the evidence of the parties and send back the record along with the additional evidence. Thereafter, the additional evidence was adduced and the records have been received back. Learned counsel for the appellant draws the attention of this Court to the evidence of DW-2/Pranay Kr. Brahma who is the Divisional Manager Bongaigaon Division of the Oriental Insurance Company. The DW-2 testified that the offending vehicle was insured with the company till 2010 but after that the vehicle was being driven without any policy from 21-01.2011 to 27.01.2011. He also stated that the owner has to submit the RC, proposal form, station report of the Motor vehicle Inspector and money receipt for getting the vehicle insured with the company. Further, the proposal form is to be signed by the owner along with its declaration. He deposed that manual policies were issued only till 2008 and from 2009 onwards the system has become computerised. He stated that barcode was issued from the year 2017. In his cross-examination the DW-2 deposed that upon verification of the documents it was revealed that the policy was issued on 27.01.2011 from 00.00 hrs till midnight of 26.01.2012. However, the accident occurred on 22.01.2011 and as such the policy submitted by the owner of the vehicle is found to be a manufactured document as the policy was issued only on 27.01.2011 with validity till midnight of the next year instead the date 21.01.2011 as shown in the policy exhibited as Ext.II by the ve