JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. This appeal has been filed assailing the impugned Award dated 20th August 2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (West), Delhi (‘MACT/Tribunal’) in Suit No.475/2014, whereby the Insurance Company was exonerated on the ground that the insurance cover note relied upon by the claimant was a forged and fabricated document, and liability was instead fastened jointly and severally upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. The claimants’ appeal seeks to prove that the cover note was not fake and focuses on the imperative duty of the Insurance Company to have taken steps to file complaint against its own officers if such cover note was indeed issued without process.

2. Accident in question occurred on 24th December 2007 at 02:10 p.m., when the deceased, Lalit Attri, was proceeding on his motorcycle towards his office at Mangolpuri. Upon reaching near Suraj Mal Stadium, Rohtak Road, Delhi, a truck bearing registration No. UP-12C-2045, driven by respondent no. 1 and owned by respondent no. 2, struck the deceased, as a result of which he fell on the road, sustained injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same.

3. The driver and owner did not file any written statement despite opportunities. The Insurance Company was subsequently permitted to file its written statement, although it had not filed the same initially. The Insurance Company took the defence that the offending vehicle was not insured under Cover Note No.465971 and, therefore, no liability could be fastened upon it on the basis of the alleged fake cover note.

Impugned award

4. While concluding, the MACT held that the death was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and compensation of Rs.41,23,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded.

5. On the issue of liability, the MACT noted that the Insurance Company produced R3W1, Mr. Daya Chand, retired ASI, who stated that the charge sheet exhibited as Ex.PW1/13 had been prepared by him. He further stated that the original insurance policy had not been supplied by the owner and that only a copy of the insurance policy had been furnished to him.

6. Mr. N.K. Sharma, Assistant Manager of the Insurance Company, who deposed as R3W2, stated that the copy of Cover Note No.465971, which had been supplied to the Insurance Company along with the claim petition by the claimant, was a forged and fabricated document. He further stated that the said cover note had neither been issued in respect of the offending vehicle nor signed by the official of the Insurance Company whose stamp appeared at the bottom of the cover note.

7. It was further deposed that the said cover note had actually been issued in the name of S.K. Malhotra in respect of vehicle No. DDU-4317 under Policy No. 99/2177, valid from 12th October 1998 to 11th October 1999. R3W3, Mr. Hakumat Rai, Deputy Manager, also corroborated the testimony of R3W2 and tendered his affidavit as Ex. R3W3/A.

8. The Insurance Company further placed on record Cover Note No.465931, which had been issued in respect of vehicle No. DL-8CH-2457 in the name of Mr. Ravinder Singh Sethi, which was exhibited as Ex. R3W3/3. The Insurance Company also placed on record a copy of the notice issued to the owner under Order XII Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), exhibited as Ex. R3W3/5, along with the postal receipts.

9. The MACT, upon examining the record, noting that there had been no cross-examination by the driver or the owner, concluded that the cover note in question, which contained handwritten entries and had been produced by the claimant, was forged and fabricated.

Submissions on behalf of claimants

10. The appellant, in its written submissions, contended that the same cover note appeared to have been issued multiple times to different persons by the Insurance Company. Therefore, according to the appellant, responsibility ought to be fixed upon the officials of the Insurance Company, and the matter