JUDGMENT R.D. Shukla, J. 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated June 22, 1987 of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation passed in Case No. 1207 Gha/Ksha/84 whereby a compensation of Rs. 19,200/- has been directed to be paid by the Insurance Company (appellant here). This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company disclaiming the responsibility of payment. 2. The brief history of the case is that Motiram was working in a truck No MPN 5666. The same was owned by respondent No. 3 here. Gulabsingh was working in the truck. The truck met with an accident on May 21, 1982. Gulab Singh, who was an employee in the truck, died immediately. He was receiving a pay of Rs. 350/- per month from the owner of the truck. The information about the accident was given by the owner of the truck on June 27, 1982. Thereafter these claimants i.e. respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are the parents of Gulabsingh, filed an application for payment of compensation. The same was resisted by respondent No. 3 and the Insurance Company. 3. The contention of the learned Counsel for Insurance Company before the Commissioner was that there was no privity of contract between respondent No. 3 Sardulsingh and the Insurance Company, The Insurance of the employee was done on May 21, 1982 at about 11.15 a.m. while the accident occurred prior to it i.e. about 6.00 a.m. and, therefore, they are not liable to make good the loss or pay the compensation. The owner Sardulsingh did not appear before the Commissioner and remained ex-parte. However, the claimants in the case pleaded that the responsibility of payment of compensation lies on the Insurance Company as the policy would be deemed to be effective from the mid night of 20th and 21st of May, 1982. 4. Learned Commissioner has assessed the compensation to Rs. 19,200/- and took a view that the policy would be effective from the beginning of the date May 21, 1982 which began immediately after 12. O'clock i.e. on the intervening night of 20th and 21 May, 1982, and as such has made Insurance Company liable for making the payment of compensation. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. 5. O'clock i.e. on the intervening night of 20th and 21 May, 1982, and as such has made Insurance Company liable for making the payment of compensation. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. 5. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no doubt the date begins immediately after 12 O'clock in the night and if no time is mentioned in the Policy the same would be made effective from the beginning of that date. But in this case the timing is mentioned and therefore, the Insurance Company, is not responsible. As against it learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted that he applied prior to May 21, 1982. The transfer was made effective on May 21, 1982 and, therefore, the Insurance company would be liable for making the payment of the compensation. 6. The contention of claimant-respondents Nos. 1 & 2 is that in other case arising out the same accident where one Bhau, the driver of the truck has filed an application for compensation, the Insurance Company was made liable vide judgment dated April 17, 1985 passed in M.A. No. 1/85 and, therefore a conflicting view in the matter ought not to be taken. 7. Though it is true that under the proviso to Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the appeal lies only where a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. This proviso reads as follows :- "Provided that no appeal shall lie against may order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in Clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees: Provided further that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to between the parties." Now, therefore it will have to be seen as to whether any substantial question of law arises in this case. 8. 8. As contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant the question that arises for determination in the case would be as to whether the policy would be effective from the beginning of the date or after the issuance of the certificate if the time is mentioned in it. 9. The normal rule is that wherever a date only is mentioned for making the policy effective the same goes back to the beginning of the date i.e. immediately after 12 O'clock of the previous night. But where a specific time has been mentioned the position would be different. A person who applies for the insurance cannot be allowed to defraud the Insurance company. 10. In this case it has been found by learned Commissioner that the Policy was made effective from 11.15 a.m. of May 21, 1982 in favour of respondent No. 3 but the learned Commissioner has taken a view that the policy would be deemed to have begun immediately after the previous mid night and, therefore, despite the accident having taken place at 6.00 a.m. on May 21, 1982 (prior to the insurance) the Insurance Company, has been made liable to make payment of the compensation. : 11. In this case the Insurance Company has examined D.W. 1 Dwarkaprasad who has very clearly stated that Sardulsingh (respondent No. 3 here) came for transfer of policy and insurance of the worker of the vehicle at 11.15 a.m. and, thereafter he deposited the money. He has also stated that after obtaining Rs. 541/- from Sardulsingh a receipt No. 504438 was issued and thereafter Rs. 69/- were further collected and issued receipt No. 504442 and thus Rs. 610/- were collected from Sardulsingh as premium. D.W. 2 Jairam Chouhan has corroborated the story disclosed by D.W. 1. D.W. 3 Lokendra Kothari has very clearly stated mat in the instant case accident had happened at about 6 a.m. and the Insurance. Policy itself was taken at 11.15 a.m. and, therefore, the claim of Sardulsingh was disallowed. 610/- were collected from Sardulsingh as premium. D.W. 2 Jairam Chouhan has corroborated the story disclosed by D.W. 1. D.W. 3 Lokendra Kothari has very clearly stated mat in the instant case accident had happened at about 6 a.m. and the Insurance. Policy itself was taken at 11.15 a.m. and, therefore, the claim of Sardulsingh was disallowed. D.W. 4 Shri Shah has stated that Sardulsingh came to his office on May 25th 1982 and presented the form for compensation by showing the date of accident to be May 21st 1982 at about 6.00 a.m. The evidence of all these witnesses goes to show that a plea to that effect was taken and a proof was given, Sardulsingh did not appear in the witness box before the Commissioner nor filed his written-statement. This further goes to show that the fact is absolutely not in dispute 12. In the case referred by the Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in Para 6 clearly shows that no evidence was adduced by the Insurance Company, The document pertaining to the Insurance were also filed after the statement of claimant was recorded and claimant was not given an opportunity to rebut the contention of Insurance Company. This is not the case here. The facts are different. The point was raised and proved. Not only this all these questions regarding the insurance being effective after 11.15 a.m. of May 21, 1982 was put up to the claimants as well and, therefore, this is not a case where the claimant was taken by surprise. 13. As observed above, though the normal rule is that a policy showing the effective date would be taken to have started from the beginning of the date i.e. immediately after the previous mid-night but where specific date of insurance and the proposal has been given and the same has been made effective after that time the same will have to be taken into consideration. 14. Unscrupulous owners of the truck cannot be allowed to defraud the Insurance Company by procuring the insurance after the accident. In the opinion of this Court the Insurance Company, cannot be made liable for making the payment of compensation in this case. 15. However, the compensation will have to be paid by respondent No. 3 Sardulsingh, the owner of the truck as determined by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. 16. In the opinion of this Court the Insurance Company, cannot be made liable for making the payment of compensation in this case. 15. However, the compensation will have to be paid by respondent No. 3 Sardulsingh, the owner of the truck as determined by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. 16. In view of above discussion, the appeal succeeds and is therefore accepted and it is held that though the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would be entitled to obtain compensation the same shall be payable by respondent No. 3 Sardulsingh and the Insurance Company shall not be liable for making any payment of compensation. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own cost.