( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Deoria awarding Rs. 4,08,801. 00 as compensation to the claimant-respondents.

( 2 ) THE claim petition was filed by the claimant-respondents with the allegations that on 26/07/1992 at about 9. 00 P. M. when Imtiaz, husband of claimant-respondent No. 1 and father of respondents 3 and 4, was going on his scooter, Truck No. URO 9570 dashed against him with the result he received serious injuries and later on expired. He was aged about 28 years and was working as a Manager in U. P. State Tourist Corporation on a monthly salary of Rs. 2,700. 00. He died leaving behind him his widow, a minor son, a minor daughter and mother. It was alleged that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the truck in question.

( 3 ) THE appellant contested the claim petition on various grounds. It was pleaded that the vehicle in question was not insured with the appellant and further the accident was not caused by negligent driving of the truck in question and the amount claimed was excessive.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal recorded a finding that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck in question and on consideration of material evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the claimans were entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,08,801. 00 as compensation.

( 5 ) WE have heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri V. N. Agarwal, learned counsel for the claimant-repodents.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that the vehicle in question was not insured with the appellant but it was insured with the New India Asurance Company. The Tribunal framed Issue No. 3 as to whether the truck in question was insured with the appellant and Issue No. 6 as to whether it was insured with the New India Assurance Company on the date the accident had taken place. The Tribunal found that the truck in question was under the insurance of the appellant on the date the accident took place.

( 7 ) THE owner of the vehicle in question had produced the original cover note No. 616822 which indicated that the vehicle in question was insured for the period 21-7-1992 to 20-7-1993 from its registered office, Oriental House A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, Branch Office Gorakhpur. It contains the seal of the office of the appellant and also the signature of Sri G. B. Rao. Learned counsel for the appellant denied this document and stated that this document is a fictitious document. This aspect has been considered by the Tribunal in detail. The cover note was written by Sri Dhananjai Kumar Yadav, the Development Officer of the appellant. He appeared as P. W. 4 and admitted that he had issued the cover note in question. He admitted his signature on the document.

( 8 ) THE appellant produced D. W. 1 Ravindra Nath Tiwari, the Branch Manager. He also admitted that the original cover note contains signature of Dhananjai Kumar Yadav. On behalf of appellant it was argued that the relevant documents were produced after a great delay by Dhanjai Kumar Yadav, Dhananjai Kumar Yadav gave explanation in this respect. There is no other cogent reason to show that the document is a fake document. It was issued by the Development Officer of the appellant itself.

( 9 ) THE appellant cannot escape its liability to pay the amount once a cover note is issued. In United Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlesh Singh, 1 (1995) ACC 190 : (1995 AIHC 2939) (DB), this Court held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation on the basis of cover note issued by its agent and the negligence or error of agent does not affect the liability of the insurer and even if he has been removed from service, it is for the Insurance Company to take suitable action against him.

( 10 ) THE next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the vehicle in question was insured with the New I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document