Rajesh Bindal J.:- In the present appeal the liability of the award was put on the owner and driver of the vehicle on account of the fact that the owner had failed to produce on record the insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle. Aggrieved against the award, the owner and driver are in appeal before this court.

2. Briefly, the facts as mentioned in the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”) are that on 5.7.2007, Dammi @ Rakesh (respondent no. 1/claimant) was employed as khalasi on truck bearing no. HR-39-A-4728. The truck was parked nearby Dharam Kanta Kandla. When the claimant was checking the nut bolts of the battery of the truck, suddenly it moved in the rear side, as a result of which the claimant came under its wheel and got fractured. He was removed to hospital where he remained admitted till 17.7.2007. The claimant filed petition before the learned Tribunal which was disposed of and the appellants were held liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 84,900/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of petition till its realisation vide award dated 17.11.2009. The reason for the same was that Ex. R1 which is original customer copy of the insurance in respect of the offending vehicle has already been cancelled by the insurance company and the cover note, Ex. R1, produced on record by the appellants was not clear and legible. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal.

3. Along with the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants had produced on record copy of the insurance policy dated 26.3.2007 issued by ICICI Lombard General Insurance as Annexure A-1. Considering the fact that in case the insurance policy produced by the appellants is found to be genuine, the Insurance company would be liable to indemnify the insured, the counsel for the Insurance company was asked to get the certificate verified.

4. Today, learned counsel for the Insurance company stated that on verification, the insurance policy Annexure A-1, filed with the appeal was found to be genuine. However, learned counsel further submitted that for the fault of the appellants the award of the Tribunal could not be satisfied immediately after it was pronounced as the insurance company was not held liable to pay the compensation. The appellants should have paid the compensation immediately after the same was pronounced by the Tribunal and for any subsequent period the insurance company should not be made liable to pay the interest. Learned counsel for the appellants in response to the arguments, submitted that once finally it is found that the insurance company is liable for payment of compensation to the claimant, the appellants should not be burdened with any interest even for the subsequent period.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and in view of the fair stand of the learned counsel for the Insurance company, the prayer of the applicants/appellants for additional evidence seeking permission to produce on record insurance policy is allowed. The document annexed with the application is taken on record. Considering the insurance policy, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal, holding the owner and driver of the offending vehicle responsible to satisfy the award on account of the fact that the offending vehicle was not insured with the insurance company, is set aside and it is held that the insurance company will be liable to satisfy the award.

6. As regards dispute of interest for the intervening period, in my opinion, the submission made by the learned counsel for the insurance company is meritorious. It is on account of lapse on the part of the owner of the vehicle that the award was finally passed against the appellants. The appellants were required to satisfy the award immediately after it was passed. The insurance company was absolved of its liability to pay the compensation. It is only after considering the copy of