The timing of the commencement of an insurance policy, as mentioned in the cover note or policy, determines the liability of the insurance company for an accident.

( 1 ) THE facts of this appeal presented by the united India insurance company demonstrates that the insurance company has to safeguard itself against the acts ofits own agents and officers in order to avoid the foisting of non-existent liabilityagainst it:

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case which are disturbing are these: the lorry bear in gregistration No. Mez 4578 belonging to the 5th respondent met with an accident at6. 30 a. m. on 7-5-1984. Respondents 1 to 4 filed a claim petition before the tribunalon the allegation that the husband of the first claimant and the father of claimants 2to 4 died in the motor accident. The appellant-insurance company was made as arespondent in the claim petition and it was alleged that at the time when the vehiclemet with the accident it was covered by an insurance policy issued by the appellant. before the tribunal, on behalf of the insurance company, the only evidenceadduced was the policy of insurance dated 7-5-1984. for the period commencingfrom 7-5-1984 to 6-5-1985. The tribunal proceeded on the basis, that as the policywas dated 7-5-1984 the insurance must be dcemed to have existed at the time of theaccident. Accordingly, the liability to pay the amount of compensation was fixed onthe insurance company.

( 3 ) THIS matter was heard on 9th january, 1989. At that time, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company that the original records inthe office of the insurance company disclosed that the proposal forms seeking toinsure the vehicle in question was given to the 5th respondent only on 9. 30 a. m. on7-5-1984 i. e. , after the accident and only after the receipt of the application the covernote was issued. In support of the above he had produced the carbon copy of thecover note. Learned counsel had submitted that some fraud had been played on theinsurance company by their agent and the owner of the vehicle appears to be a partyto it. On a comparison of the carbon copy of the cover note and the original covernote which had been produced by the owner-the 5th respondent, it was found thatwhile the printed numbers on both the original and carbon copy were the same,contents do not tally. The following infirmities were found: (1) according to the original cover note the proposal form was received at 9 a. m. on 5-5-1984, whereas according to the carbon copy it was received at 9. 30 a. m. (2) secondly, according to the original the period for which the insurance coverwas sought for and given was from 5-5-1984 to 4-5-1985, whereas according to thecarbon copy the period for which insurance cover was sought for and given was from7-4-1984 to 6-4-1985.

( 4 ) THOUGH the latter one is purported to be the carbon copy of the original, as they did not tally in many respects, this court considered that it wasnecessary to frame additional issues regarding the genuineness of the cover note and the policy to ascertain the truth. This court made an order under order 41, Rule 25 of the code of civil procedure and called upon the tribunal to record the evidence and give findings on the following two issues:" (1) whether the proposal form signed by the owner of the vehicle was received at the office of the appellant-insurance company at 9. 30 a. m. on 7-5-1984 i. e. , after the accident as is discernible from the carbon copy of the cover note or it was received at 9 a. m. on 5-5-1984 as is discernible from the original cover note produced by the 5lh respondent? (2) whether the insurance cover note was issued after 9. 30 a. m. on 7-5-1984 as it appears from the carbon copy of the cover note or it was issued on 5-5-1984 as it appears from the original cover note produced by the 5th respondent?

( 5 ) THE tribunal after recording the evidence has recorded a finding as follows:" (1) there is no evidence to show that 2nd respondent (r. w. 3) has signed the proposal form and the same was submitted to the insurance company at 9. 30 a. m. on 7-5-1984. There is also no evidenc