The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the timing of insurance coverage under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the liability of the insurance company based on the effective date and time of the insurance policy.

( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the award dated 23. 12. 1994, passed in Claim case No. 1 of 1993 by the Second Addl. M. A. C. T. , Mandla, whereby an award of rs. 72,000 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum has been awarded, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement.

( 2 ) SHORT facts of the case are that the appellants-claimants filed a claim case alleging that deceased Dumare Bai was the wife of appellant No. 1 and mother of rest of the appellants. It was alleged that the deceased Dumare Bai was employed on the said truck bearing registration No. MPJ 4596. While she was sitting in the truck, at that time she slept and fell down. The accident took place on 8. 12. 1992. The offending vehicle was driven by the respondent no. 1, owned by the respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3 at the relevant time. It was also alleged that because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, she died. A criminal case was registered at Crime No. 290 of 1992, hence the claim petition was filed for a sum of Rs. 3,72,400. This claim petition was opposed by the respondents and it was prayed that the offending vehicle was not insured at the time of the accident. It was further alleged that the accident took place on 8. 12. 1992 at 3 p. m. while the offending vehicle was insured at 5 p. m. on that very day.

( 3 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the issues and recorded the evidence. By the impugned award, the learned Tribunal held that since the offending vehicle was not insured at the relevant time, therefore insurance company, respondent No. 3, is not liable. However, against the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein, the award was passed for a sum of Rs. 72,000.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants claimants submit that since the offending vehicle was insured at the relevant time, therefore, the insurance company will remain liable with effect from the zero hour and learned Tribunal has committed error in exonerating the insurance company, respondent No. 3. It was also submitted that amount awarded is lesser. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram dayal, 1990 ACJ 545 (SC), wherein the hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when a policy is taken on a particular date, its effectiveness is from the commencement of that date. The insurance policy obtained on the date of accident became operative from the commencement of the date of insurance, i. e. , from the previous midnight and since the accident took place on the date of policy the insurer became liable.

( 5 ) SO far as the liability of insurance company, respondent No. 3, is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that since the accident took place at 3 p. m. and the offending vehicle was insured at 5 p. m. on that very day and there is a specific averment in Exh. NA1 that the effective date and time of commencement of insurance is from 5 o'clock on 8. 12. 1992, therefore, by no stretch of imagination a conclusion can be drawn that the offending vehicle was insured at the time of accident. For this, the learned counsel for insurance company, respondent no. 3, submits that the decision reported in the case of Ram Dayal, 1990 ACJ 545 (SC), is distinguishable and has no application to the facts of this case. Mrs. Amrit ruprah, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. 'ltd. v. Sunita rathi, 1998 ACJ 121 (SC), wherein the hon'ble Apex Court has held that where the time is mentioned in the cover note then the policy will be effective from the date and time of commencement of the insurance for the purpose of the Act. In the present case accident took place at 3 p. m. and the vehicle was insured at 5 p. m. In view of this, the insurer cannot be held liable on the basis of the above policy. Th