Shri Ashok Chakravarty who appears for the claimants in this case assails the award. He contends that the Tribunal was in error in absolving the owner, driver and insurance company of the liability. He relies on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Prakash v. Amrutlal (1996 JLJ 494). No one appears in this appeal for respondent No. 1, the owner and respondent No. 2, the driver of the vehicle. Shri Sanjay Agarwal appears for the respondent No. 3, insurance company and relies heavily on a Supreme Court decision in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jikubhai Nathuji Damhi [(1997) 1 SCC 66]. Relying on the aforesaid decision it is contended that as the cover note was issued on the same day but after the accident the insurance company could not be held liable.

We take up first the question whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the negligence of the driver was not proved in the case. We find from para-1 of the claim petition that there is an averment made that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2. We have also examined the statement of Bhajal PW 1 who was sitting alongwith the deceased in the truck. He says that when the truck was negotiating a hilly region the driver stopped the truck without taking precaution of putting something under its wheel to stop it from sliding down. Because of that negligence the truck slipped down and the deceased fell down as the truck turned turtle. He was rushed to the nearest hospital at Padhar where he was declared as dead. In a claim case the victim or claimants may not have the complete information as to how the accident took place. Strict law of pleadings, as is applicable in civil cases, cannot be made applicable to claim petitions. It has been pleaded in claim petition that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently by the driver. The act of driver in stopping the vehicle without taking proper precaution is also covered with in the wider meaning of 'rash and negligent driving' of the vehicle. The Tribunal, therefore, erred in absolving the driver and owner on ground of alleged variance between plea and proof of negligence set up by the claimants. In our opinion, the evidence of eye-witness; Bhajal PW 1 is clear enough that the accident took place because of the negligence of the driver. We, therefore, hold that the driver (respondent No. 2) directly and the owner (respondent No. 1) vicariously have to be held liable for payment of compensation.

We now take up the question of liability of the insurance company. In the decision of Jikubhai (supra) of the Supreme Court on which reliance has been placed, the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal [(1990) 2 SCC 680] has been considered and distinguished. In the case of Ram Dayal it was held as under :-

"4. There is evidence in this case that the vehicle was insured earlier up to August 31, 1984 and the same was available to be renewed but instead of obtaining renewal, a fresh insurance was taken from September 28, 1984, which is the date of the accident. We are inclined to agree with the view indicated in these decisions that when a policy is taken on a particular date, its effectiveness is from the commencement of the date and, therefore, the High Court, in our opinion, was right in holding that the insurer was liable in terms of the Act to meet the liability of the owner under the award.

5. As pointed out in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, "Date" means day, so that where a cover note providing for temporary insurance of a motor car expires 15 days after date of commencement, it runs for the full 15 days after the day on which it was to commerce."

In the subsequent decision of Supreme Court in Jikubhai (supra) the case of Ram Dayal (supra) was distinguished and it was held as under :-

"The Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal [(1990) 2 SCC 680] held that in the absence of any specific time mentione