JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award 31.10.2007 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srinagar (for brevity’ the Tribunal).

2. Before coming to the instant appeal, let me give a brief background of the facts that have led to the filing of this appeal.

3. As per the facts narrated by the claimants before the Tribunal, on 02.11.1996 deceased Ghulam Hassan Dar was knocked down by a vehicle bearing registration No.JK01/7761, that was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, Bashir Ahmad Mir, respondent No.8 herein. The accident resulted in death of the deceased. The claimants comprising widow, sons and daughters of the deceased (respondents 1 to 7 herein) filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.44, 90,000/-.

4. The driver and owners of the offending vehicle (respondent No.8 to 11 herein) contested the claim petition by filing the objections, whereby they pleaded that the offending vehicle was covered by a policy of insurance issued by Oriental Insurance Company.

5. The claim petition was contested by the appellant insurance company by filing its reply thereto, wherein, inter-alia, it was pleaded that the offending vehicle was not insured with it at the time of the accident and that the policy of insurance, reference whereof was made by the owners in their reply, is fake and fabricated.

6. On the basis of respective pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether on 2.11.1996, respondent No.1 Bashir Ahmad Mir, was driving vehicle No.JK01/7761 rashly and negligently as a result of which at Satpokran Khrew it hit one pedestrian Ghulam Hassan Dar who sustained fatal injuries and later on succumbed to the same? OPP

2. Whether the offending vehicle is not insured with respondent No.5, as the cover note is fake, forged and fictitious one and as such the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured and compensate the petitioners? OPR-5

3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving license on the date of accident and as such the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the liability? OPR-5

4. In case issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to, from whom and in what proportion? OPP

5. Relief

7. The Tribunal, after recording evidence of the parties, passed the impugned award dt.31.10.2007 whereby all the issues were decided in favour of the claimants and a sum of Rs.4,36,999/- along with interest @ 6% was awarded in their favour. It was further directed that the award shall be satisfied by the appellant insurance company. It is this award, which is under challenge before this Court by way of the instant appeal.

8. The appellant has challenged the award mainly on the ground that the finding of the Tribunal on issue No.2 is perverse and against the evidence on record, inasmuch as the appellant insurance company has, after leading cogent and convincing evidence, succeeded in proving that the policy of insurance produced by the owners before the Tribunal is fake and fabricated. It has been further contended that the person who, as per the contention of the owners of the offending vehicle had issued the policy of insurance, was neither an agent nor an employee of the appellant insurance company and, as such, he was not authorized to issue the policy of insurance on behalf of the appellant insurance company. On this ground, it is urged that the contract of insurance has not come into existence between the owner of the offending vehicle and the appellant insurance company, particularly when the premium has not been received by the Company.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have contended that the finding on issue No.2 returned by the Tribunal is based on evidence and that the same does not deserve to be interfered with.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the gr