The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance policy comes into effect from the time specifically mentioned in the certificate of insurance and the cover-note.

1. - The appellant, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., has challenged the award dated 15.10.1993 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to the "learned tribunal") whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a Compensation of Rs. 8,44,400/- to the respondents claimants.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.10.1990 about 10:30 AM, the deceased, Mr. Vijay Kumay Jain, met with an accident with a truck, bearing registration No.RJZ 8733 which was being driven rashly and negligently. Consequently, Dr. Jain expired. Since his family, consisting of wife, children, mother, two unmarried sisters and one brother, were all dependent upon the deceased, they filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to support their case, they examined three witnesses. The appellant-company examined a single witness. Before the learned Tribunal, the appellant-company specifically raised an objection that it was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. For, the accident had taken place at 10:30 AM on 25.10.1990, but the insurance policy did not come into effect till 4:00 PM on the same day. Therefore, according to the appellant-company, at the time of accident the truck was not insured with the Insurance-company. However, notwithstanding the said objection, after going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal passed the award as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court by the Insurance-company.

3. Mr. Vigyan Shah, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised following contentions before this Court : firstly, the learned Tribunal has relied upon two cases namely [(1990) ACJ Raj) 827 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dakhi & Ors.)] and [(1990) ACJ (SC) 545 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal & Ors.)] wherein the Hon'ble Rajajsthan High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that the insurance policy comes into effect at zero hour i.e., from the midnight of the previous day. However, according to the learned counsel for the appellant both these cases were decided under the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. But, under the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the situation has changed. Thus, the impugned award is based on wrong case law. Secondly, according to the Rules 141 and 142 of the Motor Vehicle (Central) Rules, 1989, the insurer shall issue a certificate of insurance in Form 51 and every cover-note issued by an authorised insurer shall be in Form 52. According to the Forms 51 and 52 "Time of commencement of risk" has to be mentioned in the certificate of insurance and in the cover-note. According to the learned Counsel, once the time has been specified, the insurance policy would commence only at the time so specified and not at zero hour. Thirdly, in the present case, the time shown in the cover-note was 4:00 PM, while the accident took place at 10:30 AM. Therefore, at the time of accident, the truck was not insured. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant-company is not liable for payment of compensation amount.

4. On the other hand Mr. Sandeep Mathur, the learned counsel for the respondents, has argued that fifty percent of the compensation amount has already been paid to the claimants by the Insurance-company and the other fifty percent is lying with the learned Tribunal. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the compensation should be paid by the Insurancecompany, but the right of recovery may be given to the Insurance-company.

5. We have heard both the learned counsels for the parties, perused the impugned award and have examined the record placed before this Court.

6. The legal issue before this Court is at what time does the insurance policy come into effect whether at the time specified in the certificate of insurance and the cover-note or at the zero hour? However, this issue is no longer res-integra as in the case of J. Kalaivani & Ors. v. K. Sivashankar & Anr. [(2002) WLC (SC) (Civi