The risk on the part of the insurer commences from the date of receipt of the premium, whether by cash, cheque, or money order.

M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J.

( 1 ) ORIENTAL insurance Co. Ltd. , Salem is the appellant herein.

( 2 ) THE claimants, the widow and two daughters of the deceased, filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, stating that periyathambi, deceased, died in the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the lorry belonging to the respondent No. 4 herein, insured with the appellant, and claimed the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000.

( 3 ) THE Tribunal awarded Rs. 52,000, holding that the insurance company is liable to pay the said amount on behalf of the owner of the lorry.

( 4 ) QUESTIONING the finding with reference to liability fastened on the insurance company, this appeal has been presented before this court. Aggrieved over the inadequacy of quantum, the claimants, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein, have filed cross-objection No. 97 of 1995.

( 5 ) FEW facts, which are required for the disposal of this appeal and cross-objection could be stated as follows: on 20. 5. 1991, at about 2. 00 p. m. , the deceased Periyathambi was going on his bicycle, keeping to his left side, at Narasimhachetty Road at Shevapet. While so, near S. M. C. Service Station, a lorry bearing the registration No, MDL 2984 came behind the deceased, at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. Due to the injuries sustained, he died on the spot. The deceased was aged about 47 years. He was a mason by profession. Claimant No. 1 is the wife and claimant Nos. 2 and 3 are his daughters. The deceased was sole breadwinner to the entire family. Hence, claim petition was filed for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000.

( 6 ) BEFORE the Tribunal, the claim petition was resisted by both the owner of the lorry as well as the insurance company, the appellant herein, through the counter stating that the driver of the lorry was not negligent.

( 7 ) ON behalf of claimants, the claimant no. 2 Mariammal was examined as PW 1 and one Periyathambi, the son-in-law of the deceased, the eyewitness, was examined as PW 2. Exhs A-l to A-4 were marked on their side.

( 8 ) ON the other side, the owner of the lorry, respondent No. 4 herein and one viswanathan from insurance company were examined as RW 1 and RW 2 respectively and Exhs. R-l to R-4 were marked.

( 9 ) THE Tribunal, on analysing the materials, placed by both the parties, concluded that the driver of the lorry was negligent and the insurance company, on behalf of the owner of the lorry, would be liable to pay the amount of Rs. 52,000 as compensation to the claimants.

( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant, while assailing the award, would mainly contend that the accident had occurred on 20. 5. 1991, whereas the insurance policy became valid only from 21. 5. 1991 and, as such, the insurance company cannot be fastened with liability to pay any amount as compensation to the claimants. In order to support his plea, he would cite several authorities.

( 11 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for claimants and the owner of the lorry, respondent Nos. 1 to 4, in justification of the impugned award would, with equal vehemence, contend that the premium was paid and accepted on 20. 5. 1991 and, therefore, the policy commences on that date itself and mere mentioning in the policy as 21. 5. 1991 would not absolve the insurance company of the statutory liability. He would also cite many authorities.

( 12 ) IN the light of the rival contentions indicated above, the question that arises for consideration in the present case is as to when exactly the risk on the part of the insurer commences.

( 13 ) I shall mention, at the outset, that the question in relation to the liability had not at all been raised by the insurance company in its counter filed on 12. 2. 1992 before the Tribunal.

( 14 ) ON the other hand, in the counter filed by the owner of the lorry, on the same date, i. e. , 12. 2. 1992, it is specifically stated that in the event the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the driver was neglig