The admission of involvement of a vehicle in an accident by the owner and driver, coupled with the failure of the insurance company to lead evidence to disprove the existence of a cover note or that the vehicle was duly insured, creates a presumption of validity of the cover note and renders the insurance company liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

1. The present appeal is preferred by the claimants/appellants assailing the judgment dated 19.9.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Merta City whereby, the claim petition was rejected on the ground that the story set up by the claimants was found to be false and the Court held that the accident was not caused on account of wrongful and rash driving of truck no. RNN 9882 by the driver Sita Ram and the death of Kana Ram was not caused on the said basis.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the police had after thorough investigation on the basis of the FIR lodged by the appellants, came to a finding that the truck no. RNN 9882 was actually involved in the accident and Sita Ram was driving the same. Charge-sheet in this regard was filed as against the driver. He submits that in the claim petition, the owner and driver were impleaded along with the insurance company and a reply was filed on behalf of the owner and driver and they admitted the involvement of truck no. RNN 9882 in the accident. Thus, there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to have decided otherwise. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the truck was duly insured with the insurance company and the insurance company did not lead any evidence with regard to the issue no. 3 relating to the liability of the insurance company. The learned Tribunal has decided the issue no. 3 as against the insurance company and, therefore, the insurance company has been held liable. Learned counsel for the appellants has taken this Court to the evidence which has been recorded and also to the written statement. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that AW 2 Bastiram has deposed in his evidence that he was working on the same truck along with deceased Kana Ram and while he was loading stones, the driver Sitaram by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently caused the accident. In the cross examination conducted by the advocate of owner and driver, there was no suggestion made that the truck was not involved in the accident. He has on the other hand asserted that his statement was recorded before the ACJM court in the criminal case. With regard to the cross examination conducted by the advocate of the insurance company, he stated that he does not know as to by which vehicle, the accident occurred. He stated that he was a labourer and today, does not know the date and time when the accident occurred and that the deceased was not his relative. At the time when the accident occurred, he was filling up the vehicle with stones. Thus, learned counsel for the appellants submits that evidence of eye witness had remained undeterred and there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to hold otherwise. It is his further submission that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi. vs. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi reported in AIR 1960 SC 100, if the averments have been clearly admitted, no further evidence is required to be led with regard to the same. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that there is no evidence led either by the owner or driver or by the insurance company. In view thereof, he states that the claim petition ought to have been allowed.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent insurance company submits that there is a cloud of doubt relating to the accident. Kaluram father of the deceased Kanaram who has lodged the FIR does not mention of the truck no. RNN 9882 to be involved in the accident but has submitted that his son was working on the truck no. RNN 9882 and another truck which was owned by Prem Singh was involved in causing the accident. He submits that the insurance cover note for the truck has been issued on the same day and thus, there is likelihood that at the time when the accident took place, the vehicle was not insured and later on