JUDGMENT T.S. Doabia, J. 1. This judgment shall also dispose of M.A. No. 110/89 (Smt. Ramla Bai and Anr. v. C.L. Modi and Ors.). 2. A car bearing No. DLV 4376 met with an accident with a bus bearing No. MPW 9871. Two persons who were travelling in the car died on the spot. The accident took place at about 8.45 a.m. The persons who died are (i) Ravi Anand and (ii) Nirmal Kumar Gupta. 3. So far as Nirmal Kumar Gupta is concerned, he was the Forest Ranger. It is not in dispute that the total emoluments which he was drawing was 1050/- per month. So far as other person namely Ravi Anand is concerned, he was the driver of the vehicle. It was pleaded that he was earning more than Rs. 1000/- per month. However, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding to the effect that this driver was earning Rs. 900/- per month. So far as Nirmal Kumar Gupta is concerned, his income was found to be earning Rs. 1050/- per month. 4. On perusal of the evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car in question. Accordingly, the claimants were not awarded any compensation. 5. Thus, the findings which have been recorded are as under: (i) That the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. (ii) Income of Nirmal Kumar Gupta was found to be Rs. 1050/- per month. (iii) Income of Ravi Anand was found to be Rs. 900/-. The dependency was fixed as Rs. 700/-per month. As indicated above, the findings have been recorded by the Tribunal that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and therefore the compensation was not awarded. 5. In this appeal preferred by the claimants, it is argued that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has misdirected itself and not appreciated the evidence properly which was brought on record. A particular reference has been made to the statement of P.W. 2 Ashok Khare. This witness stated in a categoric terms that it was the bus which was at a high speed and it dashed against the car. He further stated that the death of two occupants was almost instant. A particular reference has been made to the statement of P.W. 2 Ashok Khare. This witness stated in a categoric terms that it was the bus which was at a high speed and it dashed against the car. He further stated that the death of two occupants was almost instant. On the other hand, three witnesses appeared on behalf of the respondents. One of them was travelling in the bus. According to him, the car was coming not in straight line; it was coming in a zig-zag manner. This witness attributed negligence to the car driver. The same thing was also stated by the bus driver, who has appeared as D.W. 3 Salim Khan. Another witness who was named as D.W. 1 Natthu stated that he had seen the accident. According to him, the bus was stationary as there was a ditch on the road. 6. It be seen that the driver of the bus has stated that the car hit the bus on its right side. If this aspect is taken into consideration, then it becomes apparent that the car and bus were proceeding in the opposite direction. The car would be at the left side. It hit the bus on the side of seat of the driver. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve P.W. 2 who had stated in categoric terms that the bus was going at the high speed. We have looked at the photographs also. The car was completely damaged. The car was hit on the driver side. This establishes that the car was moving on the left side and the further fact that the car hit the bus driver side also indicates that the car was on its correct position. If this be the position then the finding recorded by the Tribunal has necessarily to be reversed. Another factor which has prevailed with us is that case set up that the driver of the car was drunk is incorrect. The medical evidence has come on record, that Dr. V.K. Choubey has appeared as D.W. 5. He has stated in categoric terms that the deceased persons were not drunk. No smell of liquor was coming from the dead bodies. The medical evidence has come on record, that Dr. V.K. Choubey has appeared as D.W. 5. He has stated in categoric terms that the deceased persons were not drunk. No smell of liquor was coming from the dead bodies. Thus, the story sought to be proposed by the respondents that the car driver was drunk and the car was being rashly and negligently driven by him cannot be believed as indicated above, this finding is reversed. It is held that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. 7. Coming to the question of quantum. So far as Nirmal Kumar Gupta is concerned, it has been found that he was earning Rs. 1050/-. He was a Forest Ranger. On account of the duties assigned to him, he was living mostly out of house. It can be assumed that he was spending l/3rd on himself. If this figure is taken into consideration, then the dependency would come to Rs. 700/-. So far as Ravi Anand is concerned, Tribunal has already recorded a finding that the dependency is Rs. 700 /-. This finding is affirmed. Both the occupants were around 29 years of age. The multiplier of 16 is being applied. On this basis, the total compensation payable to the claimants would be Rs. 1,34,400/-. The round figures would be Rs. 1,35,000/-. 8. So far as Mis. Appeal No. 146/89 is concerned, this has been preferred by the widow of Nirmal Kumar Gupta. She would be entitled to Rs. 10,000/- by way of loss of consortium. 9. The further question which still requires to be decided as to whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay this amount or not. It has come on record that the bus was consistently being insured by the Insurance Company by the name of New India Insurance Company. The accident had taken place on 15.5.1982. A cover note for that is available on record. This is dated 15th of May, 1982. A part of the payment has been made in cash. 10. It be seen that if a cover note is issued on a particular date, then the insurance policy would relate to previous mid-night Such is the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the case reported in 1990(2) ACJ 545. This is dated 15th of May, 1982. A part of the payment has been made in cash. 10. It be seen that if a cover note is issued on a particular date, then the insurance policy would relate to previous mid-night Such is the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the case reported in 1990(2) ACJ 545. This view was followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in 1995 ACJ 2626. In view of the Division Bench judgment referred above arid the clear opinion expressed by the Supreme Court which judgment was followed by the Division Bench, it has to be held that the bus in question was duly insured on the said date. If this be the position, Insurance Company could be held responsible for the compensation to be paid. Therefore, the Insurance Company would pay the compensation. The rate of interest would be 12% from the date of application. In case, the payment is not made within four months, then the rate of interest would be 15%. The period of four months would begin from the date of receipt of this order by the Counsel for the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company would also pay Rs.1000/-as costs in each case. 11. In M.A. No. 110/89, the claimants are also claiming costs of damages of the car on account of accident. No finding has been recorded by the Tribunal, visa-vis the price of the car taking into consideration the fact that the Ambassador car even of old model is fetching reasonable value, a sum of Rs. 15000/- would be permissible to be paid to the claimants.