JUDGMENT :

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.

1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard and decided finally.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant -National Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 30.01.2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bali in MAC Case No. 167/98, whereby, an amount of Rs. 7,64,200/- was awarded to the claimants on account of the death of Madan Lal in the accident which occurred on 17.06.1998.

3. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence brought on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties decided the claim application of the claimants. Hence, this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident occurred while Madan Lal was traveling towards Falna in a Jeep having registration No. RJ-27-T-0420 which was driven by its driver. The said Jeep dashed with a tree which resulted into Madan Lal's death in the said accident.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that findings of the Tribunal recorded on Issue No. 5 are totally erroneous and in view of the evidence adduced, the same is required to be re-appreciated. Learned counsel further submits that a bare perusal of Ex.-A5/1 shows that there is an over-writing on the date of commencement of the period of policy and the date 19.06.98 has been changed to 17.06.98. He further submits that since the accident occurred on 17.06.98, therefore, just to get compensation in the present case, the date of the commencement of insurance cover note was manipulated from 19.06.98 to 17.06.98. He further submits that in the office copy of the said document Ex.-A5/1, the date is recorded as 19.06.98 only, therefore, it can safely be inferred that at the time of accident, there was no insurance of the vehicle involved in the accident.

6. Mr. Jagdish Vyas, learned counsel for the Insurance Company emphatically submitted that receipt Ex.-A3 issued by the Insurance Company for receiving the amount of premium is also dated 19.06.98. Therefore, there is no question that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured w.e.f. 17.06.98. Learned counsel submits that in the Daily Collection Statement Register produced before the Tribunal, it is very clearly mentioned at Entry No. 760 that the amount received on account of the insurance of the subject vehicle was paid on 19.06.98. Therefore, the commencement of insurance policy in no circumstances, could be considered w.e.f. 17.06.98. Learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the fact that Ex.-A4A is only the proposal form which is not signed by the proposer and even the stamped receipt is also not believable. The document itself was prepared after the accident. He further submits that on the form Ex.-A4A, the cheque number or details are nowhere mentioned or given. The document also does not reflect that the proposal form was accompanied by the cheque given by the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that as per the proposal form, the cheque was received in the office of appellant-insurance company, prior to the date of accident.

7. Learned counsel further submits that when this fact of forgery having been committed in the document was brought to the knowledge of the Competent Authorities of the Insurance Company, an F.I.R. was lodged and appropriate disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the erring officer. The charges framed against the officer who committed forgery were proved and, therefore, he was terminated from the service of the appellant-insurance company.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, on the strength of these documents submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence brought on record and wrongly held that the Jeep No. RJ-27-T-0420 was insured with the appellant-insurance company at the time of accident.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that contract in the present ca