IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.249 of 2007 BRANCH MANAGER,ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE AT R.N. SHAW ROAD, PURNEA. ……….APPELLANT Versus 1.RAJKUMARI DEVI, W/O GAURI SHANKER YADAV, MOTHER OF DECEASED MAHI LAL KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE PURVI GHAT, BAND TOLA, POLICE STATION SARSI, DISTT. PURNEA. 2.(i) SHSHILA DEVI, W/O LATE SHIV NARAYAN CHOUDHARY (ii) MANI BHUSHAN CHOUDHARY (iii) SHASHI BHUSHAN CHOUDHARY (iv) CHANDRA BHUSHAN CHOUDHARY SONS OF LATE SHIV NARAYAN CHOUDHARY, R/O AT+PO THUMAHA, P.S. PIPRA, DISTT. SUPAUL (OWNER OF TCM TRUCK NO. BR-19-7455) ARE SUBSTITUTED VIDE ORDER DATE 25.8.2009 3.AHOSK KUMAR, S/O RAJENDRA PRASAD, R/O AT THUMAHA, P.S. PIPRA, DISTT. SUPAUL. ……….RESPONDENTS. For the Appellant: Seema, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Girizanand Prasad, Advocate. 11. 20.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal has been preferred against order dated 21.3.2007 passed by District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Purnea in Motor Vehicle Claim No. 34 of 2005 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, awarding Rs. 50,000/-(fifty thousand) compensation to the claimant. The one and only ground in the impugned order taken by learned counsel for the appellant-insurer is that, vehicle in question was not covered under valid insurance at the time of accident. It is undisputed that the vehicle in question was insured by the appellant and policy has also been renewed from time to time. This is the case - 2 - of the appellant that in the cover note issued before issuance of the policy, the owner made some interpolations and produced the same before police from which copy was obtained by the claimant, and produced before the Claim Tribunal, who on placing reliance thereon hold the appellant liable to make payment. The learned counsel for the appellant was giving stress on some sheets of paper relating to details of payment of premium etc., but failed to reply as to what prevented the insurer-appellant to file copy of cover note or policy, lying in its custody to specifically show and established interpolation etc., as alleged by the owner in the papers issued by the insurer showing insurance of the vehicle in question. In absence of such authentic paper, which could have been held sufficient to decide the issue and none filing of the suit in spite of having custody by the appellant, adverse inference is to be drawn against appellant. Thus appellant is here by directed to discharge the liability as held and awarded by the Claim Tribunal, if so wishes and convinced with the papers, if any, insurer-appellant is in custody may initiate another proceeding against owner for realization of the amount paid, where in dispute between the owner and insurer including question of interpolation etc., may be determined. . I do not find any merit in this appeal, accordingly is hereby dismissed, with above liberty and observation. Praveen (Akhilesh Chandra,J.)