CRP 169/2004 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR The petitioner (National Insurance Company Limited) is aggrieved by an order dat ed 5.4.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Barpeta in MAC Case No. 553 of 2000. 2. It appears that an accident took place on 13.11.2000 at about 10.30 A.M. In the accident a young child of about 9 years of age Fatema Khatun died. On th e death of the child, her parents filed a claim for compensation under the provi sions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal on a consideration of the evidence on record came to the conclusion by a judgment and order dated 6.9.2003 that the cl aimants were entitled to compensation to the extent of ‘ 2,00,000/- with interes t at 9% per annum from the date of the presentation of the claim petition. 4. Subsequently, the Insurance Company came to know that in fact the vehicl e involved in the accident namely AS-01/J-2375 was not insured with it. It is no t clear how the Insurance Company came to know about this. In any event, an appl ication was filed by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal to review the jud gment and order dated 6.9.2003. 5. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order dated 5.4.2004 came to t he conclusion that since the owner of the vehicle claimed to have registered his vehicle and at the relevant time obtained coverage by an insurance policy with the National Insurance Company Limited and the document in this regard was seize d by the police authorities in respect of a case under Section 279/304(A) of the Indian Penal Code there can be no doubt that the vehicle was in fact insured wi th National Insurance Company Limited for the relevant period. On this basis, th e Tribunal rejected the review application filed by the Insurance Company. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the Insurance Company has preferred this petition und er Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. During the pendency of this petition, by an order dated 30.9.2010 a dire ction was given to the Insurance Company to deposit the awarded amount of ‘ 2,00 ,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition t hat is 16.12.2002. The amount has since been deposited by the Insurance Company. 8. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a fraud had been played with the Insurance Company inasmuch as the offending vehicle was sh own to have been insured with the petitioner but in fact it was not so insured. 9. Leaving open the question decided by the Tribunal and without considerin g the question whether a fraud was played in this regard it is quite clear that the Claimants have nothing to do with the alleged fraud. If at all a fraud was played it was by the owner of the vehicle and certainly not by the Claimants. 10. Under these circumstances, there is a no reason why the Claimants should suffer inasmuch as the compensation due to them has been denied for a considera ble period of time. If the Insurance Company has any grievance, it can have a gr ievance only against the owner of the vehicle and not against the Claimants. 11. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and accordingly this petition is dismissed. 12. The Registry will hand over the deposited amount to the Claimants at the earliest possible. 13. On request of learned counsel for the petitioner, liberty is granted to it to proceed against the owner of the vehicle to recover the compensation award ed to the Claimants. 14. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. 15. Trial Court records be sent back immediately.