Insurance liability is affirmed even if the policy is issued post-accident, as payment was made before the accident, thus binding the insurer.

1. The present first appeal under S.173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant insurance company, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 26.3.2024 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Surat in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 248 of 2011, by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,82,973 with 9 per cent per annum interest to the claimant, holding the opponents, i.e., driver, owner and insurance company of Maruti van No. GJ - 21-4426, liable jointly and severally.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under.
2.1 That on 23.8.2009 at about 10.30 p.m., when the claimant was going from Gangadhara to Surat along with her brother, as a pillion rider, on motor cycle bearing registration No. GJ - 5 - FJ - 3215 and when they reached at the place of incident, railway crossing was closed and therefore, her brother had parked the motor cycle on the side of the road and at that time, Maruti van bearing registration No. GJ - 21-4426 driven by opponent No. 1, came in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the motor cycle from behind. Due to that, the claimant sustained serious and multiple injuries. Therefore, the claimant has filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000 with cost and interest.
2.2 Before the learned Tribunal, notice was served to the opponents, i.e. driver, owner and insurance company of the Maruti van. Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared and filed their written statement at Exh. 12, whereas opponent No. 3 insurance company has filed its written statements at Exh. 23, by disputing all the averments made by the claimant in the claim petition.
2.3 The Tribunal has framed the issues at Exh. 30. The oral as well as documentary evidence were led by the rival parties before the Tribunal. After considering the documentary as well as oral evidence and submissions made at the Bar, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation as noted above.
2.4 It is this judgment and award impugned, which is challenged by the appellant insurance company before this court.

3. Learned advocate, Mr. Mehta, for the appellant insurance company has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not properly appreciating the facts of the case. He has submitted that the accident occurred on 23.8.2009 and the insurance policy commenced from 25.8.2009 and was valid up to 24.8.2010. He has submitted that therefore, on the date of accident, no valid insurance policy was in existence. He has placed reliance on the provisions of S.64VB of the Insurance Act and has submitted that no risk to be assumed unless premium is received in advance. He has submitted that the impugned award may be quashed and set aside and this appeal may be allowed.

4. It is noteworthy to mention that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 gives paramount importance to the concept of 'just and fair' compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. S.168 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the concept of 'just compensation' which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the claimants.

5. The only point for determination before this court would be that as the premium was paid by the insu