The rights of third parties to receive compensation from the insurer are protected under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the insurer cannot avoid liability based on premium payment issues.

PANWAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 3. 8. 96 passed by Motor Accidents Claims tribunal No. 2, Udaipur (hereinafter for short the Tribunal) whereby the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 40,000 in favour of respondent-claimant and against the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 jointly and severally.

( 2 ) BEING aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellant insurer has filed this appeal.

( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

( 4 ) THE only point argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the owner of the truck involved in the accident obtained the cover note in backdate without disclosing the material fact that the vehicle met with an accident. The appellant seeks exoneration from the liability only on this ground.

( 5 ) BRIEF facts, which are relevant for the purpose of decision of this appeal are that on 26. 3. 1986 at about 9. 30 a. m. , the respondent-claimant was proceeding on his cycle from village Juntari to village karchha. At that relevant time, he was hit by a truck bearing No. RSM 1099 from behind, which was driven rashly and negligently by its driver, the respondent No. 2. Due to this accident, the respondentclaimant sustained various injuries on his person including fracture of clavicle bone (shoulder ). At the time of the accident, the age of the respondent-claimant was 14 years and he was a student of class IX. Due to this accident, he could not undertake his studies for at least one year. The injuries resulted in permanent disablement. The claimant has incurred expenses on treatment, attendants, nourishment and diet as also suffered physical pain and mental agony. Under these heads, the claim was made for Rs. 84,800 before the Tribunal.

( 6 ) BY the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the said accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver respondent No. 2. The Tribunal also reached to the conclusion that at the relevant time, the said truck was owned by respondent No. 3 and was validly insured with the appellant insurance company and passed an award of Rs. 40,000 in favour of the respondent-claimant holding the driver, owner and the appellant liable jointly and severally.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that the said accident took place on 26. 3. 1986 at 9. 30 a. m. and the owner of the truck respondent No. 3 without disclosing the fact of the accident, obtained the cover note in respect of the truck in question commencing for the period from 24. 3. 1986 to 23. 3. 1987. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the said cover note No. 375189 was not issued on 24. 3. 1986 but in fact it was issued after 29. 3. 1986. It was further contended that the amount of premium received by the agent of the appellant insurance company, was deposited with the insurance company on 31. 3. 1986 and, therefore, he contended that the appellant can only be held liable from the date it actually received the premium in its office and not from the date when the premium was received by the agent of the appellant insurance company.

( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondentclaimant has supported the judgment and award impugned. He contended that the said accident took place on 26. 3. 1986 at 9. 30 a. m. whereas truck No. RSM 1099 involved in the accident was under a valid insurance commencing for the period with effect from 24. 3. 1986 to 23. 3. 1987 and as such, on 26. 3. 86, the said truck was under a valid insurance and, therefore, by virtue of provisions of section 95 (5) and section 96 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act), the appellant insurer is liable for the compensation.

( 9 ) THE appellant filed written statement before the Tribunal wherein it was pleaded that it appears from the cover note that the owner of the vehicle obtained the cover note from the backdate. It was pleaded that the amount of pre