ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the owner of the vehicle to challenge the judgment and award dated 15. 1. 1993 in mvc No. 51 of 1987 passed by the motor accidents claims tribunal, bidar (district judge, bidar ). In passing the same, the m. a. c. t. had fastened the entire liability on the appellant. The grievance of the appellant herein is that the m. a. c. t. would have fastened the liability also on the respondent No. 1 insurance company. ( 2 ) I heard the learned counsel for the appellant owner, Mr. Manikappa patil and the learned counsel, Mr. G. r. ramesh, appearing for the respondent No. 1 insurance company. The respondent No. 2 is represented by Mr. B. a. chandrashekar, whereas the respondent No. 3 claimant is represented by Mr. M. v. seshachala. I have also perused the case records together with the records of the m. a. c. t. below. ( 3 ) THE case requires narration of the facts and the same are as hereunder: that the respondent No. 3 had filed a claim petition before the motor accidents claims tribunal, bidar (henceforth in brief as 'm. a. c. t. ') claiming compensation of Rs. 2,54,000 for accident injuries he had suffered in hands of the respondent No. 2 driver of the lorry bearing registration No. Myj 3705. The vehicle in question was originally owned by one mohd. Kasim patel, who had obtained an insurance policy, a copy as at exh. Rl, from the respondent No. 1 insurance company on 3. 12. 1985, covering the third party risk for a period from 3. 12. 1985 to 2. 12. 1986. That, subsequently on 16. 5. 1986, the said kasim patel sold the lorry in question to the appellant and accordingly on 16. 5. 86, the original owner mohd. Kasim patel had also addressed a letter dated 16. 5. 1986 to the respondent No. 1 insurance company under exh. R4 requesting the respondent No. 1 insurance company to transfer the interest vested in the policy in the name and favour of the appellant herein. In so doing, the original owner had also surrendered the insurance certificate under the said letter. That on very date, 16. 5. 1986, the appellant herein had also given a proposal form to the respondent No. 1 insurance company, the original whereof is at exh. In so doing, the original owner had also surrendered the insurance certificate under the said letter. That on very date, 16. 5. 1986, the appellant herein had also given a proposal form to the respondent No. 1 insurance company, the original whereof is at exh. R5 on the records of the m. a. c. t. that, in pursuance of the said letter of the original owner, the respondent No. 1 insurance company had issued a policy as per exh. R3, wherein it had been shown specifically that the policy in question would be alive from 16. 5. 86 to 2. 12. 1987. That in the meantime on 11. 12. 1986 the vehicle in question met with an accident resulting in the accident injuries to the respondent No. 3 and further resulting in filing the claim petition before the m. a. c. t. that the appellant owner as well as the respondent No. 1 insurance company had opposed the claim of the respondent No. 3 before the m. a. c. t. disputing every contention of the respondent No. 3 claimant and further contending in the objection statement that his vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 1 insurance company and the insurance was in force on the date of the accident and in the event the compensation was to be awarded by the m. a. c. t. , the respondent No. 1 insurance company was liable to indemnify the liability of the appellant owner. Per contra, the respondent No. 1 insurance company while disputing all the contentions of the respondent No. 3 claimant contended before the m. a. c. t. that the vehicle was originally owned by one mohd. Kasim patel and that he was issued with a policy valid from 3. 12. 1985 to 2. 12. 1986. That subsequently, the vehicle was transferred by the said mohd. Kasim patel to the appellant herein and that the second policy was issued to the appellant, copy as at exh. R3 wherein the expiry date of the insurance coverage was shown as 2. 12. 87 instead of 2. 12. 1986 by mistake and that there was no valid insurance on the date of accident and as such the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation to the respondent No. 3 claimant. Based on the pleadings, the m. a. c. t. had framed four issues and further framed two additional issues. 12. 87 instead of 2. 12. 1986 by mistake and that there was no valid insurance on the date of accident and as such the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation to the respondent No. 3 claimant. Based on the pleadings, the m. a. c. t. had framed four issues and further framed two additional issues. The respondent No. 3 claimant had examined himself and examined three other doctor witnesses and further marked 15 documents, whereas the respondent No. 1 insurance company had examined its assistant branch manager as rw 1 and further marked 8 documents including the original insurance policy, exh. Rl, true copy of the insurance certificate in the name of the appellant, exh. R3, original consent letter of mohd. Kasim patel, exh. R4, proposal form of the appellant owner, exh. R5, original certificate issued to the appellant owner, exh. R6. Based on the evidence on record, the m. a. c. t. while awarding a global compensation of Rs. 60,500 together with interest at 6 per cent per annum had fastened the liability exclusively on the appellant owner on the ground that there was no valid insurance policy as on the date of the accident and that no premium was paid to cover the insurance coverage for the period beyond 2. 12. 1986, having been aggrieved with the said finding, the appellant owner is before this court resoring to the instant appeal. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant owner while pressing the ground in the appeal memorandum argued that the appellant was not knowing what had gone on earlier to the purchase of the lorry and further what had gone on till the duplicate insurance policy was issued to him as per exh. R3. He had pointedly drawn my attention to the period of coverage of insurance set out in exh. R3 policy, wherein it had been clearly stated that the period of coverage was from 16. 5. 86 to 2. 12. 1987. It is further argued by him that when the respondent No. 1 insurance company had set out the period of insurance coverage till 2. 12. 1987, the appellant had naturally taken for granted that there was insurance coverage till 2. 12. 87 in terms of the policy, exh. R3. Therefore, according to Mr. 5. 86 to 2. 12. 1987. It is further argued by him that when the respondent No. 1 insurance company had set out the period of insurance coverage till 2. 12. 1987, the appellant had naturally taken for granted that there was insurance coverage till 2. 12. 87 in terms of the policy, exh. R3. Therefore, according to Mr. Patil, it was not available for the insurance company to argue before the m. a. c. t. that it be absolved of the liability under the policy in question. Mr. Patil had also relied upon the decisions in Harischandra Hegde V. T. P. Krishnamurthy, 1984 ACJ 351 (karnataka) and yaswant RAJ V. Mohan Lal, 1985 ACJ 23 (Rajasthan), on the point that when the transfer of policy to the subsequent owner was delayed by the insurance company and in the meantime if there were to be an accident making second owner liable, the insurance company had to indemnify the second owner. Mr. Patil had also relied upon an unreported decision of the learned single judge of this court in m. f. a. No. 938 of 1992; decided on 13. 2. 1998, wherein the learned single judge held that if a mistake was committed by the insurance company in issue of the policy showing the period of coverage by mistake, the third party should not suffer and further that in such circumstances it was incumbent on the insurance company to compensate the claimant at the first instance and thereafter resort to recovery of the sum from the insured. Therefore, Mr. Patil prayed that the impugned judgment and award passed by the m. a. c. t. absolving the liability of the respondent No. 1 insurance company be set aside by holding that the respondent No. 1 insurance company is jointly and severally liable to indemnify the respondent No. 3 claimant in allowing the instant appeal of the owner. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 insurance company, Mr. G. r. ramesh vehemently argued that the appellant owner cannot take advantage of a typographical error that had crept in mentioning the date of expiry of the coverage of insurance as 2. 12. 1987 in exh. R3 (the second policy issued to the appellant owner) instead of mentioning as 2. 12. 1986. G. r. ramesh vehemently argued that the appellant owner cannot take advantage of a typographical error that had crept in mentioning the date of expiry of the coverage of insurance as 2. 12. 1987 in exh. R3 (the second policy issued to the appellant owner) instead of mentioning as 2. 12. 1986. In furtherance of his argument that it was mistake by the insurance company in the insurance policy to mention the date of expiry of the policy as 2. 12. 1987, Mr. Ramesh had drawn my attention to the original policy, exh. 'rl issued to the original owner mohd. Kasim patel, wherein the period of coverage of insurance was specifically mentioned as 3. 12. 1985 to 2. 12. 1986. It is also his argument that transferring the insurance interest by the insurance company was the insurance interest in the original policy, exh. Rl in the name of the appellant owner and it is thus the second policy, exh. R3 came to be issued to the appellant owner. It is, therefore, his submission that exh. Rl has to be read along with exh. R3. Incidentally, he had also pointed out that in the endorsement, exh. R2 addressed to the appellant owner, it had been clearly stated that the period of coverage v/as from 16. 5. 86 to 2. 12. 1986. In this regard, he had specifically drawn my attention to the condition that was mentioned in exh. R2 to the effect that the second policy, exh. R3 was issued in the name of the appellant owner subject to the condition as it had occurred in exh. Rl. While adverting to Section 64-vb of the insurance Act, Mr. Ramesh also submitted that unless and until the insurance premium was paid the question of coverage of the insurance by the insurance company did not arise at all. It is also argued by him that it is nobody's case before the m. a. c. t. that the premium was paid by the appellant owner in issue of exh. R3, insurance policy. ( 6 ) TO sum up his argument, Mr. Ramesh argued that the appellant owner could not make out a grouse as against the impugned judgment and award fastening the entire liability on him, for according to him, he was knowing fully well that there was no insurance cover as on the date of accident. R3, insurance policy. ( 6 ) TO sum up his argument, Mr. Ramesh argued that the appellant owner could not make out a grouse as against the impugned judgment and award fastening the entire liability on him, for according to him, he was knowing fully well that there was no insurance cover as on the date of accident. ( 7 ) IN the light of the submissions and counter submissions made above, I have gone through the records of the m. a. c. t. below. I should point out here that though the appellant owner had taken up specific contention in filing the objection statement that the insurance policy was in force as on the date of the accident on 11. 12. 1986, he had not chosen to produce either the insurance policy or to adduce any evidence from his side. All the more even the evidence that was tendered before the m. a. c. t. was by the respondent No. 1 insurance company by examining its assistant branch manager as rw 1. It is seen that in tune with the defence taken by him, the appellant owner had not chosen to cross-examine the respondent No. 1. Therefore, it is obvious that the evidence of the respondent No. 1 insurance company before the m. a. c. t. had gone totally unchallenged. As I see the specific case that was made out by the insurance company both in filing the objection statement and further in adducing the evidence before the m. a. c. t. , it was specifically contended by the insurance company that it was by inadvertence that expiry date was mentioned as 2. 12. 1987' instead of 2. 12. 1986' in issue of exh. R3, insurance policy to the appellant owner. It is also to be noted here that the proposal form, exh. R5 was also moved by the appellant owner before the respondent No. 1, insurance company, wherein he has specifically set out that the date of expiry of the insurance policy was 2. 12. 1986. As a matter of fact in issue of endorsement, exh. R2, it had also been specifically set out in left hand top that the period of insurance coverage was from 16. 5. 86 to 2. 12. 1986. Let apart, even in addressing the letter by the original owner, mohd. Kasim patel on 16. 5. 86, copy as at exh. 1986. As a matter of fact in issue of endorsement, exh. R2, it had also been specifically set out in left hand top that the period of insurance coverage was from 16. 5. 86 to 2. 12. 1986. Let apart, even in addressing the letter by the original owner, mohd. Kasim patel on 16. 5. 86, copy as at exh. R4, it had been stated therein that the insurance coverage was to expire as on 2. 12. 1986. When the appellant owner is a party to the said transfer of insurance policy and the proposal, I am at loss to understand as to how the appellant owner could canvass either before the m. a. c. t. or for that matter before this court to say that there was insurance coverage as on the date of the accident with issuance of the insurance policy, exh. R3, for in my considered view, the said policy had to be read along with exh. Rl, the original insurance policy, the respondent No. 1 insurance company issued to the original owner. It is to be noted here that the insurance interest in that policy that was transferred in the name of the appellant owner subsequent to the purchase of the vehicle in question on 16. 5. 1986 in issue of the second policy, exh. R3. The learned counsel for the appellant owner vociferously argued that the respondent No. 1 insurance company had made the appellant owner to believe that the insurance coverage was for the period from 16. 5. 86 to 2. 12. 1987. It is to be observed here that the appellant owner himself was knowing that the insurance coverage under exh. Rl policy, the interest whereof was transferred in the second policy in exh. R3 issued to him was for the period from 3. 12. 1985 to 2. 12. 1986 and not beyond. The said fact being very well-known to him, he had moved the proposal under exh. R4 to the respondent No. 1 insurance company. Let it apart, it is not in dispute that he had not paid the premium for the period beyond 2. 12. 1986. It is, therefore, fallacious on the part of the appellant owner to say that there was coverage of insurance under exh. R3. I am, therefore, left with no doubt that setting out the date of expiry as 2. 12. 12. 1986. It is, therefore, fallacious on the part of the appellant owner to say that there was coverage of insurance under exh. R3. I am, therefore, left with no doubt that setting out the date of expiry as 2. 12. 1987 was nothing but a typographic error on the part of the respondent No. 1 insurance company. That being so, in my considered view, it is not available for the appellant owner to claim coverage of the insurance by the respondent No. 1 insurance company in issue of second policy, exh. R3. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant owner had cited two decisions in Harischandra Hedge V. T. P. Krishnamurthy, 1984 ACJ 351 (Karnataka) and yaswant RAJ V. Mohan lal, 1985 ACJ 23 (Rajasthan ). Having gone through the said decisions, I am of the view that the said decisions are not applicable to the instant case in hand, for the set of facts in the reported cases is different from the set of facts in the instant case in hand. The other decision the learned counsel for the appellant owner had relied upon is an unreported decision in m. f. a. No. 938 of 1992; decided on 13. 2. 1998, I have also gone through the said decision. The said decision is applicable in a case where the third party had suffered injury to life or property or suffered bodily injury as the provision in the insurance act should be construed liberally in favour of the claimant. In the case in hand, it is not the claimant who is before this court but it is owner to take shelter under exh. R3, insurance policy, admittedly issued by the respondent no. 1 insurance company setting out the period of insurance wrongly by inadvertence to the knowledge of the appellant owner as stated above. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal. In my considered view, in passing the impugned judgment and award, the m. a. c. t. had rightly fastened the liability on the appellant owner exclusively. The appeal, therefore, fails and accordingly stands dismissed. No cost. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .