The burden of proof lies with the Insurance Company to establish its defense, and the lack of evidence to disprove the validity of the permit or compliance with insurance terms can result in the rejection of the appellant's submissions.

Manoj Misra,J.

Heard Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The instant appeal has been filed by the insurer of Bus No. UP15-AT-0695 against the judgment and award dated 27.03.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Ghaziabad in M.A.C.P. No. 597 of 2010 by which a compensation of Rs. 2,79,000/- has been awarded to the claimant-respondent on death of Ramesh Chandra in a road accident dated 02.08.2007.

3. A perusal of the record reveals that as many as nine issues were framed by the Tribunal. The claimant had examined two witnesses, namely, P.W.1 (the widow of the deceased) and P.W.2 (Santosh), who was an eye-witness of the accident. Amongst others, the documents produced before the Tribunal were copy of the first information report, copy of the death certificate, copy of the registration certificate of the Bus involved in the accident, copy of the insurance policy, copy of the driving licence of Raj Kumar, who was alleged to be the driver of the Bus, copy of the permit of the Bus, copy of the fitness-certificate of the Bus, copy of the hospital bills, etc., copy of the site plan, copy of the post-mortem and copy of the charge-sheet prepared by the police pursuant to the investigation. No evidence either documentary or oral was produced from the side of the opposite parties including the appellant.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence on record as also the statement of P.W.2, came to the conclusion that the deceased Ramesh Chandra was hit by a roadways bus at about 9 PM on 02.08.2007, as a result of which, he suffered injuries for treatment of which he was rushed to the Hospital where he died on 23.08.2007. The medical treatment bills and all documents showing that he was admitted in the Hospital and was treated there were also brought on record. The post-mortem as also the inquest report disclosed that his death was on account of injuries suffered in an accident. The investigation, which resulted in charge-sheet, indicated that Raj Kumar was the driver of the Bus, which was involved in the accident. After taking a conspectus of the evidence brought on record, the Tribunal returned a finding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Bus No. UP15-AT-0695.

5. Four issues were framed at the instance of the Insurance Company and they were issue nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6. Issue no. 3 was to the effect whether the vehicle was duly insured on which the Tribunal returned a finding that from the document brought on record i.e. the insurance policy, it was duly established that on the date of the accident, the vehicle was insured. On issue no. 4, the Tribunal returned a finding that from the documents brought on record, it was established that there was a valid permit for use of the vehicle as also that the driver held a valid driving licence. On issue nos. 5 and 7, the Tribunal observed that they were not pressed by the opposite parties.

6. Having decided all the issues in favour of the claimant-respondents, the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs. 2,79,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the award on ground that the first information report was lodged with a delay of one year and, therefore, the Tribunal erred in law by returning a finding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Bus insured with the appellant. The other submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the document, which was taken by the Tribunal as permit was, in fact, a letter from the Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Meerut disclosing that there was a permit. It has been submitted that since the actual permit document was not produced, therefore, the liability could not have been fastened on the Insurance Company.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant has also appl