The burden of proof lies with the claimants to establish the existence of a valid insurance policy at the time of the accident, and the insurance company is entitled to raise all defenses permitted under the Motor Vehicles Act.

1. In an accident which occurred on 19.01.2001, one Mr. G. Subramani died. His legal representatives claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Appellant-Insurance Company, disputed that the vehicle bearing Regn. No.TSG 6996 was not insured with them, at the time of accident. The 1st Respondent, the owner of the vehicle has remained ex parte, before the Tribunal.

2. Wife of the decreased examined herself as P.W.1 and P.W.2 is the eye-witness. Ex.P1 dated 19.01.2001, certified copy of the FIR, Ex.P2 dated 20.01.2001, certified copy of M.V.I. Report, Ex.P3, certified copy of the Post-mortem Certificate and Ex.P4, certified copy of judgment in STC No.1400/2001 of learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Cuddalore were marked on the side of the Claimants/Respondents 1-7. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the Appellant. The Tribunal framed two issues. (1) Whether the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent act of the car driver? (2) Whether the Petitioners are entitled to compensation. If so, whet amount?

3. Though, the Appellant-Insurance Company has disputed that the vehicle was not insured at the time of accident no specific issue has been framed by the Tribunal regarding the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation. On evaluation of pleadings and evidences, the Tribunal held that the Driver of the vehicle owned by the 8th Respondent in this Appeal as responsible for the accident and consequently, held the Appellant Insurance Company as liable to pay compensation. Being aggrieved by the liability fastened on the Appellant-Insurance Company, without there being any adjudication as to whether the Company is liable to pay compensation, in the absence of Insurance particulars furnished by the Claimants/Respondents 1-7, the Company has preferred this Appeal.

4. Inviting the attention of this Court to Cloumn No.16 of the Claim Petition made by the Respondents, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that no details of the Insurance Policy of the offending vehicle bearing Reg. No.TSG 6996 were furnished by the Claimants and when the Insurance Company, in their Counter Affidavit, at Paragraph No.4, has specifically denied that the vehicle alleged to have been involved in the accident was not insured with them, at the time of accident, the Tribunal has grossly erred in mulcting the liability on the Insurance Company, on the sole ground that a Petition under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, had been filed seeking permission from the Tribunal to contest the case on all available grounds that are open to the owner of the vehicle as per the statute.

5. He further submitted that unless the Claimants/Respondents furnish the relevant particulars atleast the number and date of Insurance Policy and the other particulars of the Insurer, it would be very difficult to verify as to whether the offending vehicle was insured with any other branches in the State.

6. According to the learned Counsel, at the time of accident, there was no such machinery or technological support systems to ascertain the details from all the branches in the State of Tamil Nadu and at best, they can verify only from the branch in the jurisdiction where the accident has occurred. He further submitted that in the case on hand, after due verification, with the branch at Cuddalore, it was ascertained that the offending vehicle was not insured with their Company and therefore, they have discharged the burden and duty cast on them.

7. Placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai v. R. Venkatesan and another, 2003 (1) LW 31, learned Counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company submitted that when the details of Policy, expiry date and address of the Insurance Company are given in the Application, it would facilitate the Insurance Company to verify as to whether the offending vehicle was insured or not. In the absence of any such details, it would not be