The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability for compensation under the Insurance Act 1938, particularly Section 64 (b), and the significance of the date and time specified in the insurance policy.

On 3. 1992 at about 6.30 p.m. while the deceased Kandasamy was riding his bi-cycle, his father Sengamalai Padayachi was sitting on the back seat. While the cycle was proceeding along Ammamapalayam Road near Bungalow Kadu, a tractor bearing registration No.TN-27-Z-2151 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the cycle from the back and hence the accident occurred. Both of them sustained serious injuries and were removed to Government Hospital, Attur. Kandasamy was referred to M.K.G.M.C. Hospital, Salem, for further treatment, however, on the way, he died. He was aged about 28 years at the time of accident. He was an agriculturist and tapioca broker. Agricultural lands to the extent of 49. 5 hectare belong to the family of the deceased. He was earning not less than Rs.2,000/-per month. The first petitioner is wife of the deceased, second and third petitioners are minor sons and fourth and fifth petitioners are parents of the deceased. Hence a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is claimed as compensation.

2. In the counter filed by the first respondent, it is stated that the deceased was aged more than 40 years and was not doing any work. He was neither an agriculturist nor a tapioca broker. The accident occurred due to the natural causes. The compensation claimed is excessive. The deceased was responsible for the accident. He lost control over his cycle. He was already sick. This respondents vehicle was hypothecated to Indian Bank, Attur Branch and the understanding was that the banker should pay the insurance premium at the appropriate date. Hence the petition has to be dismissed.

3. In the additional counter filed by the first respondent, it is stated that on 3. 1992, the fourth respondent bank debited Rs.1,411/-from this respondents loan account towards policy amount. On 3. 1992 itself by way of bankers cheque, the policy amount was paid to the third respondent Insurance Company. Due to oversight the third respondent had not insured the vehicle in time and to avoid payment of compensation, they insured the vehicle on 3. 1992 alone. Hence, both the Insurance Company and Bank are responsible to compensate the claimants.

4. In the counter filed by the third respondent Insurance Company, it is alleged that the driver did not possess valid driving licence on the date of the accident and there was no valid permit and R.C. for the vehicle. The avocation, income as alleged in the petition are denied. This respondent was impleaded on 10. 1997 alone and hence the rate of interest has to be computed only from the said date. It is not correct to say that the accident took place due to the negligent driving of the driver. The negligence was on the part of the deceased. The claim is excessive. Hence, the petition has to be dismissed.

5. In the additional counter filed by the third respondent Insurance Company, it is mentioned that only on 3. 1992 the first respondents vehicle was insured with this respondent and hence this respondent is not liable to pay compensation.

6. In the counter filed by the fourth respondent, it is averred that this respondent is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the claim petition. This respondent has nothing to do with the case and is not responsible for compensation.

7. After analysing the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal Judge fastened the responsibilty on the owner of the vehicle, Insurance company and Indian Bank holding them jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. Aggrieved against the said award, the Insurance Company is before this Court.

8. A thorough discussion has been taken up by the Tribunal with reference to the particulars available in the oral evidence on record and it reached a conclusion that under Section 64 (b) of the Insurance Act, the Insurance Company has to be held liable since on 3. 1992 itself the bankers cheque for Rs.1,411/-was despatched by the bank.

9. As