JUDGMENT 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. 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 mentioned in that behalf, the contract would be operative from the midnight of the day by operation of provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897. But in view of the special contract mentioned in the insurance policy, namely it would be operative from 4.00 p.m. on 25.10.1983 and the accident had occurred earlier thereto, the insurance coverage would not enable the claimant to seek recovery of the amount from the appellant-company." From the above quoted portions of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases mentioned above, the distinction to be noticed is that where there is no specific stipulation about the time from which an insurance cover will be operative it would be from the midnight of the date on which the insurance was obtained. In the instant case, the defence of insurance company was struck off and the complete document of policy was not filed by the insurance company. As the defence of the insurance company was struck off the Tribunal should not have considered the defence of the insurance company. The photostat copy of proposal form which is on record shows that the proposal was made after occurrence of the accident but the cover note was issued and premium was accepted after the vehicle was inspected on 28.2.1992 at 3.30 p.m. As the contents of the document show it cannot be 3.30 a.m. as claimed by insurance co., if it was issued after the accident which occurred at 12.00 noon. On these facts it is clear that there is no specific stipulation with regard to the commencement of the policy from a particular hour. Earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Dayal would, therefore, help the claimants to hold that the insurance company is liable under the policy. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal clearly erred in not awarding any 'fault liability compensation' against all the respondents. At the end learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that in this case as the owner has suppressed the fact of accident and fraudulently obtained insurance of the vehicle this Court should hold that the insurance company is entitled to get reimbursement of the amount from the owner. At the end learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that in this case as the owner has suppressed the fact of accident and fraudulently obtained insurance of the vehicle this Court should hold that the insurance company is entitled to get reimbursement of the amount from the owner. As has been held in the Division Bench case of Prakash (supra) the insurance company should have pleaded such fraud against the owner in the claim petition itself. But it failed to do so and its defence was also struck off for non-payment of no fault liability compensation. This Court, therefore, would not grant the relief to the insurance company as prayed for in this appeal. If the law permits, the insurance company may independently sue the owner for the alleged fraud and concealment in obtaining the insurance policy and claim reimbursement of the amount awarded. The last question arises as to what should be quantum of compensation. The deceased at the time of his death was aged 30 years. He was earning Rs. 1,200/- per month. The Tribunal has worked out the monthly dependency at Rs. 800/-. The annual dependency would come to Rs. 9,600/-. At the age of 30 years the counsel agree that normally multiplier to be taken is 12. Calculated thus the compensation amount would work out to Rs. 1,15,200/-. The deceased has left behind a widow. She would therefore, be entitled to a sum towards loss of consortium which should not be less than Rs. 5,000/-. In addition the claimants should get Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses. Adding all the above sums the total compensation would be Rs. 1,22,200/- which the appellants would get with interest at 12% per annum from the date of application. Appeal allowed.