The burden to prove the validity of the vehicle's documents lies with the owner, and the insurance company is liable to pay compensation if it fails to establish that the vehicle was plying in violation of the policy.

Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.

1. These are the two first appeal from orders involving the same facts and circumstances arising out of the same accident, hence they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. Heard Mr. Ved Prakash, learned counsel for appellant and perused the record.

2. These first appeal from orders arise out of the judgment and award dated 24.4.2013 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 97 of 2006, Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal and others v. Zubair Alam and others, as well as judgment and award dated 24.4.2013 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 109 of 2007. Ram Dev Jaiswal and another v. Zubair Alam and others, whereby the claims have allowed against the appellant-insurance company and a sum of  Rs. 3,21,500 and  Rs. 1,52,000, respectively have been awarded as compensation to the claimants.

3. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has wrongly come to conclusion that the vehicle involved in the accident i.e. Truck No. U.G.M.-666 was plying with valid permit and fitness certificate.

4. It is submitted that on inquiry the appellant has come to know that the certificate issued by Tax Officer. Faizabad is only road tax and fitness certificate, it cannot be treated as a permit to ply the vehicle on route Gonda-Faizabad road on which the vehicle was plying at the time of said accident.

5. Submission is that the appellant could not bring the aforesaid fact before the learned Tribunal as they have been informed by the concerning office only after the award was pronounced. He may be permitted to move application under Order XLI, Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure to bring this additional evidence before this Court. The request of appellant's counsel would be considered at the appropriate time.

6. The question involved in both the appeals is trivial in nature, as such, I hereby propose to decide the appeals at the admission stage itself.

7. It is the admitted case of the appellant that the accident dated 30.3.1992 involving vehicle truck (U.G.M.-666) which was coming from Faizabad and going to Gonda had taken place in which deceased Shiv Kumar Jaiswal as well as Bajrangi and several other persons had suffered injuries due to which Shiv Kumar Jaiswal and Bajrangi had died.

8. It is also admitted that the said vehicle was driven by driver Munna s/o Shakir r/o mohalla Chandpur, P.S. Kotwali Nagar Bahraich, Tehsil and District Bahraich who was having valid driving licence.

9. The learned Tribunal while deciding the aforesaid claims had framed certain issues including the issue No. 4 in both the claims with respect to fitness certificate and road permit which on reproduction reads as under:

10. The learned Tribunal in its conclusions on the aforesaid issue has held that the burden to prove the aforesaid issue was on the owner of the vehicle (defendant Nos. 1 and 2 before the Tribunal). The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have produced certificate of Tax Officer, Faizabad certifying the road tax and fitness of vehicle No. U.G.M.-666, according to which the fitness certificate was for the period 4.2.1992 to 3.2.1993 and the road tax was deposited up to 31.12.1992. The said documents were not disputed by the insurance company. The learned Tribunal accepting the said documents has come to conclusion that the vehicle involved in the accident was having valid fitness certificate and the road tax was duly deposited, therefore, it was plying as per rules.

11. It is to be observed that in case the appellant had raised a plea that the vehicle involved in the accident was plying in violation of terms and conditions of the policy, then the burden was on the insurance company to have proved the same. The insurance company had failed to establish before the learned Tribunal that the vehicle was plying in violation of terms and conditions of the policy hence not liable to pay compensation.

12. Even in case the contention of learned counsel for appellant is accepted that subsequently on inquiry it has com