the Tribunal, erroneously shifting the onus of proving the nonpossession of the policy, against the appellant. Therefore, the Insurance company, he claims, is right in questioning the award of the Tribunal on the liability. Adding further the learned counsel submitted that when the claim was made on 2.9.2005 for payment of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation, namely, for pain and suffering at Rs.10,000/-, for extra nourishment at Rs.5,000/- and for permanent disablement at Rs.1,85,000/-, no proof with regard to the validity of the insurance policy on the date of accident in respect of the vehicle owned by the second respondent was produced, therefore, the claim petition filed with a delay of 14 years ought not to have been entertained by the Tribunal, he claimed. In view of the huge and unexplained delay of 14 years, the appellant-Insurance company is not in a position to ascertain the facts and the manner of the accident. However, when the Insurance company denied the alleged accident that had taken place on 6.1.91 involving the first respondentclaimant and the bus bearing registration No.PYT-1155 belonging to the second respondent-insured, the Tribunal ought not to have fixed the liability on the appellant-Insurance company. Even before the Tribunal, the appellant-Insurance company had categorically denied that the driver of the bus bearing registration No.PYT-1155 had valid and subsisting driving licence with necessary endorsement to drive the vehicle. Again the Insurance company, the appellant herein has again further denied that the said vehicle was insured by this appellant, because, either on the date of registration of the First Information Report or on the date of making the claim before the Tribunal, no valid or subsisting insurance policy to claim the compensation against the appellant-Insurance company was produced. For these reasons, the Tribunal ought to have accepted the denial made by the Insurance company with regard to the claim of the first respondent-claimant.
