Honble PRASAD, J. – This appeal has been filed by the Assurance Company against an award passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bali. The limited scope of the grounds available to the Assurance Company are availed by the appellant. It is urged that the accident had taken place on 25th Jan. 1986 at about 11 a.m. and the policy was purchased from one Pawan Kumar, agent of the appe- llant/Assurance Company in the afternoon. (2). The counsel for the appellant urges that while the police was purchased by Fazal Khan from the appellant/Assurance Company, it was not disclosed that the accident had already occurred and therefore, the fraud had been committed with the Assurance Company. He places reliance on Section 96 (2C) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 and urges that the non disclosure of a material fact has made the policy void. The owner has withheld this information of the accident from the agent of the appellant. (3). It has been urged on behalf of the respondents that the question of fraud has been raised by the Assurance Company without any foundation. They have not produced Shri Pawan Kumar in the witness box to establish as to whether any fraud was committed and, therefore, the fraud has become a question dependent on production of evidence of the man who was responsible for issuing the cover note. In absence of evidence of Shri Pawan Kumar, this fact cannot be investigated. (4). I have considered the rival submissions of the parties, the Assurance Com- pany can not legitimately raise the question of fraud as it had not taken steps to establish the case of fraud. No evidence has been produced to establish any circumstance that fraud has been committed. He only wants to rely on the time factor. This alone is not sufficient to establish the fraud therefore, this argument the learned Counsel for the respondent is rejected. (5). Next question raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the Assurance policy would be effective only after the time. when it was issued, that is in the afternoon of 25th Jan., 1986 whereas the accident has occurred in the fore- noon of 25th Jan., 1986. This argument is not available to the counsel for the appellant. The controversy has been laid at rest by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of New India Insurance Co. when it was issued, that is in the afternoon of 25th Jan., 1986 whereas the accident has occurred in the fore- noon of 25th Jan., 1986. This argument is not available to the counsel for the appellant. The controversy has been laid at rest by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ram Dayal and Ors. (6). It has been held in the aforesaid case that policy taken during any part of the day becomes operative from the commencement of the day which starts from the previous mid night. Since the accident in the present case had taken place in the forenoon of 25th Jan., 1986, the Assurance Company is liable to indemnify the claims. No other point has been urged. The cross-objections filed on behalf of the owners are not pressed. (7). Consequently, the appeal and cross-objections are dismissed having no force. There will be no order as to costs.