Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat on a claim petition filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, had fastened the liability to pay compensation of Rs. 96,000/-alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the owner and driver of offending truck No. HRS-889, on account of death of Krishan Pal in a road accident on 16.3.1990. The Insurance Company was absolved of its liability to pay compensation on the ground that there was no privity of contract between Jawahar Singh son of Ganesh Dass and the Insurance Company.

2. Aggrieved against the award, the owner and driver of the truck had filed the present appeal for setting aside the award of the Tribunal to the extent that the liability to pay compensation has been fastened on them.

3. There is no dispute regarding the factum of accident in any manner and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the offending truck was duly insured with the Insurance Company and the premium was duly paid by the owner and as such the liability should have been fastened on the Insurance Company but the Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability on the appellants.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the liability to pay compensation has been rightly fastened on the appellants.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

7. The accident took place on 16.3.1990 and at the time of accident one Jawahar Singh son of Ganesh Dass was registered owner of truck bearing No. HRS-889. The owner of the truck, Ganesh Dass died on 12.7.1989 i.e. prior to the accident. Ganesh Dass left behind his widow and large number of family members. In the Insurance Policy, Exh. R-l issued by respondent-Insurance Company on 31.10.1989 for a period of one year i.e. upto 30.10.1990, Ganesh Dass son of Davinder has been shown registered owner of truck No. HRS-889 and the policy was being renewed by Ganesh Dass from time to time.

8. In this case, the Insurance Company continued to renew the policy in the name of registered owner and had been issuing the cover note. I am not inclined to accept the argument of learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the owner of the truck had died and the premium was being paid on his behalf by somebody else and as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. The Insurance Companies should not accept the premium with closed eyes. A duty is cast, upon the Insurance Company to verify whether the owner of the vehicle is alive or not and also to verify the credentials of the person offering premium.

9. In this case, the offending truck was duly insured with the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company had received the premium. As such, the mere fact that the owner of the vehicle had died cannot absolve the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation for the person that it is the vehicle which is being insured and not the owner of the vehicle.

10. For the fore-going reasons, the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 8-A is reversed and it is held that the liability to pay compensation would be that of the Insurance Company.

11. Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.