JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - By this judgment I dispose of three appeals : FAO Nos. 891 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Surinder Kaur etc.), 892 (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bant Singh etc.), 993 (Surinder Kaur etc. v. M/s. Moga Balwa Bus Service (Regd.) Ludhiana, etc.), all of 1998, as all these appeals have arisen from the award dated 22.1.1998, passed by the MACT, Faridkot, who allowed the applications of the claimants, Surinder Kaur, Navpreet Singh, Sukhpreet Singh and Amarjit Singh and awarded a sum of Rs. 9,84,000/-, in equal shares, on account of death of Iqbal Singh, along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e. 25.11.1992, till actual realisation. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the claim petition was filed by Surinder Kaur, Navdeep Singh, Sukhpreet Singh and Amarjit Singh, and it was alleged by the claimants that the accident took place on 23.10.1992, which resulted between bus No. PAB-8755 and Canter No. PB-03-2112, being driven by respondent No. 2-Balwinder Singh and respondent No. 3-Gurdeep Singh, respectively, in a rash and negligent manner. According to the claimants, the accident took place at about 9/9.30 a.m.. Iqbal Singh, deceased, was travelling in bus No. PAB-8755, belonging to respondent No. 1-M/s Moga Balwa Bus Service, registered at Ludhiana, which was being driven rashly and negligently. The bus was going from Moga to Badhni and when it was at a short distance from village Dosanj, a Canter bearing registration No. PB-03-2112, being driven by its driver-Gurdeep Singh rashly and negligently, struck against each other, as a result of which, Iqbal Singh, who was sitting on a seat in the bus, received injuries and he died. Other passengers also received the injuries. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as Manager in the Punjab and Sind Bank, Nihal Singh Wala. He was earning Rs. 8,216.04 per month and he was aged about 45 years at the time of his death. The claimants claimed the compensation to the tune of Rs. 12 lacs. 3. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents. The contents of the claim petition were denied by the respondents, including the insurance Company, who was respondent No. 6 in the trial Court. The claimants claimed the compensation to the tune of Rs. 12 lacs. 3. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents. The contents of the claim petition were denied by the respondents, including the insurance Company, who was respondent No. 6 in the trial Court. Respondent No. 6 took the plea that the bus No. PAB-8755, alleged to have been involved in the accident, was not insured with it at the time of the alleged accident and the driver of the bus was not having any valid driving licence and that the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The offending bus and the Canter were not having valid route permits and fitness certificates. Further, that the driver of the Canter was not having any valid driving licence at the time of the accident. 4. On merits, it was the stand of the Insurance Co. that the claimants were not entitled to any type of compensation. 5. The Tribunal framed the following issues in order to dispose of the claim petition :- "1. Whether the death of Iqbal Singh was caused on 23.10.1992 due to accident due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. 8755 driven by Balwinder Singh respondent No. 2 and Canter No. PB-03-2112 driven by Gurdeep Singh respondent No. 3 as alleged ? OPP. 2. To what amount of compensation, the claimants are legally entitled and from whom ? OPP. 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPR. 4. Whether respondents No. 2 and 3 were not having valid driving licence at the time of accident ? OPR. 5. Whether respondent No. 1 and 3 were not having route permits at the time of accident ? OPR 6. Relief." 6. The parties led evidence in support of their case and on the conclusion of the proceedings, issue Nos. 1 and 2 were decided against the respondents and in favour of the claimants and they were awarded a sum of Rs. 9,84,000/- and it was ordered to be paid by the owner, driver and the Insurance Company of the bus. Issues No. 3 to 5 were also decided against the respondents and, resultantly, the claim petition was allowed in the above terms. 7. Bant Singh also received injuries and he also filed a claim petition. He was also travelling in the offending bus and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. Issues No. 3 to 5 were also decided against the respondents and, resultantly, the claim petition was allowed in the above terms. 7. Bant Singh also received injuries and he also filed a claim petition. He was also travelling in the offending bus and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2.29 lacs by way of compensation to him along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 26.3.1993, when he filed the claim petition. 8. Aggrieved by the award, the present three appeals, two by the Insurance Company and one by the claimants, in which they have prayed for enhancement of the compensation. 9. Before I deal with the submissions of the counsel for the parties, it will be proper for me to reproduce paras 19 and 20 of the award of the Tribunal passed in the claim petition of Surinder Kaur and others, which read as under :- "19. Now it is to be seen as to by whom this amount of compensation is to be paid to the claimants. It has already been held under issue No. 1 that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 Balwinder Singh, driver of bus No. PAB 8755 belonging to respondent No. 1 and the said bus is duly insured with respondent No. 6- Insurance company as shown in the insurance policy Ex. R3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 has argued that the accident has taken placed at about 9 AM on 23.10.1992 and the bus in question was also insured on 23.10.1992 at 7.10 PM on the day of the accident and, as such, respondent No. 6 is at liable to make the payment of the amount of compensation. For this view he has relied upon II (1994) ACC 446 (DB) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Srinivas Setty and another. 20. I have considered this contention of the learned counsel for respondent No. 6 and have also gone through the authority relied upon by him, but in my view, the said authority is not applicable to the facts of the instant case, because the date on which the accident has occurred has to be treated as a whole and not from a particular period of time. When the insurance company has admittedly issued the policy on 7.10 PM on 23.10.1992 the accident, which has taken place during the day, has to be covered under the policy because the day starts from 12 AM and ends at 12 PM. So, in these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the entire amount of compensation is to be paid by New India Insurance Company respondent No. 6." 10. Counsel for the Insurance Co. submits that, admittedly, in this case the accident took place at 9/9.30 AM on 23.10.1992 and the evidence on the record is that the Insurance Co. issued the cover note with respect to the bus on the same day at 7.10 p.m. and, therefore, since there was no privity of contract between the Insurance Co. and the owner of the vehicle, starting from 9/9.30 AM on 23.10.1992, therefore, the Insurance Co. cannot be held liable for the payment of compensation. In support of his contention, the counsel places reliance upon Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi & others, 1998 ACJ 121, a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court, where it was observed that when a cover note was obtained by the insured sometime after the accident but on the same day and that the accident occurred at 2.20 p.m. and the cover note contained an express mention that the effective date and time of commencement of insurance is 2.55 p.m. on the date of accident, in such a situation the Insurance Co. is not liable. 11. Mr. Brar, counsel for the claimants, submitted that sufficient opportunity was not granted to the claimants and to the injured to rebut this part of the case of the Insurance Co. There were no specific pleadings in the written statement of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. As per the claimants, the liability under the Insurance policy will start from 12.00 mid-night of the night intervening 22/23.10.1992 and the insurance will be covered for the entire day of 23.10.1992. 12. The contention of counsel for the claimants is partly correct as I do not find any specific pleading of the Insurance Co. to this effect but definitely there is a pleading on behalf of the Company that there was no valid insurance policy at the time of the accident. 12. The contention of counsel for the claimants is partly correct as I do not find any specific pleading of the Insurance Co. to this effect but definitely there is a pleading on behalf of the Company that there was no valid insurance policy at the time of the accident. In the view of this court, the matter requires re-determination by the Tribunal as to when the privity of contract between the parties came into existence. The grouse of the counsel for the claimants is that no opportunity was given to the claimants/injured to rebut this part of the case. 13. In this view of the matter, I allow all the three appeals and set aside the impugned award dated 22.1.1998 and remand the case to the M.A.C.T., Faridkot, to re-decide the controversy as to whether there was a valid contract between the parties with regard to the insurance of Bus No. PAB 8755. If the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that there was no valid privity of contract between the Insurance Co. and the insured, the point for determination would be whether still the Insurance Co. can be held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants/injured. The Tribunal, after taking sufficient evidence which may be produced by the parties, shall pass a fresh award. 14. During the course of submissions, it was also pointed out by the counsel for the Insurance Co. that some compensation has already been paid under the order of this court to the injured and the dependents of the deceased. It will always be legitimate on the part of the Insurance Co. to recover this amount as the award dated 22.1.1998 has been set aside by this court. The sum of Rs. 25,000/- each deposited in the two appeals in the High Court shall be refunded to it. 15. The records of the trial court be sent back forthwith. 16. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 2.11.2000. 17. Dasti on payment. Appeals allowed.