THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A. No. 848 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the insurance company against the order dated 28.07.2003 in W.C.No.37 of 2002 on the file of the on the file of the Commissioner for the Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad-II questioning the liability. A claim was made before the lower Tribunal for compensation consequent on the death of the deceased Mohd. Chand Pasha @ Mahaboob Ali, the husband of the claimant, in a motor accident while he was on duty. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence on record granted a compensation of Rs.2,03,919/-. The contention of the appellant is that there is no valid policy of insurance and the cover note is said to have been issued with ante time after the incident to cover the incident. As can be seen from the record, the incident is said to have happened at 11.30 A.M. on 29.12.2001. The claim of the appellant is with the connivance of the Development Officer and the Agent, the cover note was obtained on 29.12.2001 at 11.05 A.M. and it is impossible for the agent or the owner of the vehicle, who have travelled from Bahadurpura to the scene of the incident, which is about 21 Kms., within less than 40 minutes. There was said to a fraud, according to the appellant. The evidence of the Assistant Divisional Manager clearly goes to show that the cover note was issued by the Development Officer by collecting the money. He also admitted that the cover note was effective from 11.05 A.M. to cover the risk. The mere suspicion of the appellant against its employees with regard to the fraud, does not absolve its liability to pay the money when a document clearly goes to show that even before the time of accident a cover note has been issued. It may also be noted that some times the policies of the insurance are taken at the office even without verifying the vehicles and the agents themselves will take the policy or cover note. Strong reliance is placed on the corrections in the First Information Report about the timing of the incident. But, as can be seen from the contention in the complaint, the incident is said to have happened at 11.30 A.M. and a complaint was given by the Transport Constable. The inquest report also shows that the incident has happened at 11.30 A.M. The charge sheet shows that at about 10.30 A.M., the deceased and another constable were checking the vehicles and at that time the incident happened. It does not mean that the incident has happened exactly at 10.30 A.M. Even otherwise, assuming to be that there was a collusion and fraud by the officers of the appellant, the appellant is at liberty to proceed against the employees and recover the amount. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 29-08-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A. No. 848 of 2011 DATE: 29-08-2011 MR