The main legal point established in the judgment is that a motor vehicle insurance policy is effective only for the specified period and does not cover the risk arising from an accident that occurred before the policy's commencement.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the claimants in a claim petition presented under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City.

( 2 ) THE claim petition was filed on the allegation that the Mirza Nazuriddin, husband of the 1st claimant died in a motor accident which took place on 17-11-1983 at 10. 05 a. M. involving lorry bearing Registration no. MYM 3403 belonging to the 2nd respondent in the claim petition, which was being driven by the 1st respondent in the claim petition. M/s. New India Assurance Company was made the 3rd respondent as the insurer of the vehicle.

( 3 ) THE Tribunal, on the issue, as to whether the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing Registration No. MYM 3403 recorded a finding in the affirmative. Regarding the quantum of compensation the tribunal fixed the total compensation payable at Rs. 67,440/ -. On the issue, as to which of the respondents is liable to pay compensation, the Tribunal held that at the time of accident, the vehicle was not covered by an insurance policy and therefore the 3rd respondent - Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation. The appellant, the owner of the vehicle has presented this appeal aggrieved both by the quantum of compensation awarded and the finding that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants in support of the appeal submitted as follows:- Admittedly the accident took place on 17-11-1983 at 10. 05 A. M. The Insurance policy was issued to be effective from 17-11 1983 to 16-11-1984. Once the policy was issued with the commencement date as 17-11-1983 the policy becomes effective from the minute the day commenced. In the alternative, as the policy, was a renewal policy, earlier policy must be deemed to have continued and therefore the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation.

( 5 ) FROM the documents produced in the Court below, the learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out, that in the receipt'is-sued (Exhibit R-2) for having received the premium, the words 'renewal policy' are written. Relying on this, the learned Counsel submitted that the Insurance Policy must be jeemed to have been renewed from the date on which the earlier policy expired and therefore the Insurance Company must be held' to be liable to pay the compensation and they cannot be allowed to contend that rhe policy commences after the accident and therefore the risk was not covered.

( 6 ) SRI Chinnappa, the learned Counselfor the Insurance Company, relying on the documents produced before the Court below as also the additional documents produced before this Court, which we have admitted as additional evidence submitted as follows: these documents establish that the earlier policy in respect of the vehicle in question was for a period of one year from 5-11-1982 to 4-11-1983. The policy which was issued on 17-11-1983 was for a period of 12 months commencing from 17-11-1983 (11 A. M.) to 16-11-1984, as expressly stated in the policy. As it had become the experience of the Insurance Companies from some time past that owners of the vehicles who had not taken insurance policies before the accident, rush to the office or agents of the Insurance Companies, immediately after the accident and either by suppression of the information regarding the accident and/or with the connivance of the officials/agents of the insurance Companies, take policies so as to cover the risk arising out of an accident which had already taken place, instructions had been issued lo note not only the date but also the time with effect from which the policy becomes effective. Accordingly, in the policy in question the time of commencement of policy was noted as 11 A. M. on 17-11-1983. Admittedly the accident had occurred at 10 A. M. in Bangalore on 17-11-1983 and therefore the policy was not in existence at the time of the accident and th