The risk under an insurance policy may be assumed from the date on which the money order is booked or the cheque is posted, as the case may be, under Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act.

( 1 ) THESE appeals arise from a common judgment and award dated 30. 8. 1993, given by the motor accidents claims tribunal, dakshina kannada, mangalore (Mr. S. b. chanal) member and I additional district judge, mangalore in motor vehicle case nos. 94,205 and 256 of 1989, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,16,000 in m. v. c. No. 94 of 1989 in favour of claimants of that case to be shared equally and compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,08,000 in m. v. c. No. 205 of 1989 in favour of the claimant jointly against respondent nos. 1 to 3 in the case and for a sum of Rs. 30,400 in m. v. c. No. 256 of 1989, but it directed the insurance company to indemnify the owners of the vehicle and fastened the liability for payment of the compensation on the respondents in each motor vehicle case, jointly and severally. The amount of compensation in each case has been awarded as mentioned above with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of payment or deposit of the compensation money.

( 2 ) APPEAL No. 2013 of 1993 and the appeal No. 2297 of 1993 arise out of m. v. c. No. 256 of 1989. Appeal No. 2013 of 19993 has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation while the appeal No. 2297 of 1993 and the other two appeals m. v. c. nos. 2296 and 2298 of 1993 have been filed by the united India insurance co. Ltd. And it may be clarified that appeal No. 2296 of 1993 arises from m. v. c. No. 94 of 1989 while appeal No. 2298 of 1993 arises from m. v. c. No. 205 of 1989. As mentioned earlier, appeal nos. 2296, 2297 and 2298 of 1993 which have been filed by the insurance company in all these three cases raise one common question of law and fact as to the liability of the insurance company with reference to the compensation awarded in the three motor vehicle cases as to whether the insurance company, appellant, is liable to pay the amount under the award to the claimants? While appeal No. 2013 of 1993 relates to the question of enhancement of the compensation awarded therein.

( 3 ) EXCEPT in m. v. c. No. 256 of 1989, in which appeal No. 2297 of 1993 has been filed by the insurance company, the claimant had filed appeal No. 2013 of 1993, in other two motor vehicle cases m. v. c. No. 94 of 1989 and m. v. c. No. 205 of 1989, giving rise to appeal nos. 2296 and 2298 of 1993, no cross-appeal or cross-objection has been filed by other claimants in those cases, nor by the other respondents.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the facts of the case, on 9. 1. 1989 at about 5 p. m. the oil tanker bearing No. Cnx 6543 which was driven by the driver thereof on n. h. 48 leading from padil to kannoor on mangalore-b. c. road, was being driven rashly and negligently and dashed against padmanabha and also against one ramananda shenoy, husband of claimant No. 1 in m. v. c. No. 205 of 1989, who was father of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 and son of petitioner No. 4. It also dashed against the motor cycle bearing No. Cno 1889 on which the claimant dinakar of m. v. c. No. 256 of 1989 was a pillion rider, though the said motor cycle was being driven on the correct side. According to the claim of the claimants in these petitions, padmanabha who was the son of the claimant in m. v. c. No. 94 of 1989 died on the spot and thereafter the said oil tanker according to the claimants case bearing No. Cnx 6543, went ahead on its wrong side and as mentioned earlier dashed against the motor cycle thereby caused grievous injuries to the person of said manel ramananda shenoy the rider of the motor cycle and the pillion rider of the motor cycle, namely, dinakar, claimant in m. v. c. No. 256 of 1989, dinakar was thrown away. He had suffered severe grievous injuries and suffered permanent disability while padmanabha and ramananda shenoy sustained grievous injuries to their persons and the vital parts of the body and succumbed to the same. The claim petition, that is, m. v. c. No. 94 of 1989 had been filed by the heir