JUDGMENT P. K. Sen, J. This appeal is at the instance of the Insurance Company and is directed against an award by Sri T. K. Ghosh, Judge, Motor Accident Compensation Cases, Tribunal Alipore in M.A.C.C. No. 65/99. 2. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed two applications, one under Section 140 and another under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation. In 166 proceedings, the amount of compensation asked for was Rs. 2,00,000/-. The allegations made thereunder that they are the legal heirs of Smt. Anjali De, who died as a result of road accident on 27.11.95 at about 5.45 p.m. and such accident was caused by mini bus bearing No. WBR 2555 which, was coming at a high speed and collided with the rickshaw in which Smt. De was traveling. As a result, the victim had fallen on the road and she was run over by the offending vehicle. Consequently, the victim sustained severe injuries on her person and died on the spot. 3. In contesting the claim of the claimants, the present appellant which was O.P. No.2 before the trial Court denied all the allegations and their case is that the claim was not maintainable. Their further case was that it was not covered by a valid policy of insurance at the material point of time and, therefore, the appellant is not liable for any compensation. 4. After hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of the evidence on record, the M.A.C.C. Tribunal allowed the claim and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,59,500/- against the insurer inclusive of all the amount of Rs. 50,000/- which was awarded under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. On being aggrieved by the order passed in Section 166 proceedings, the instant appeal has been preferred before this Court. 6. The learned Advocate while assailing the judgment under appeal has submitted before us that the appellant is not liable for any compensation as the vehicle in question was not Covered by a valid policy of insurance on the date of accident. The learned Advocate appearing for the claimant respondent has challenged the maintainability of the appeal and has submitted that the appeal is not maintainable in view of a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1) A1R 1998 SC 588. The learned Advocate appearing for the claimant respondent has challenged the maintainability of the appeal and has submitted that the appeal is not maintainable in view of a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1) A1R 1998 SC 588. Now, the learned Advocate for the appellant insurance company has submitted that as there was no valid policy covering the vehicle, they are not liable for any compensation. The learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that on the date of the accident which took place on 27.11.95, no. premium having been paid and, therefore, the insurance policy had not began to run and according to him the learned Tribunal should have exonerated the appellant insurer from the liability altogether. To counteract this argument, the learned Advocate has drawn our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1998 SC 588 . The Supreme Court observes that the insurer issuing policy to cover an accident without receiving premium becomes liable to indemnify third parties in respect of liability which policy cover and to satisfy awards of compensation. In another judgment of our High Court reported in (2) 97 (2) TAC 693 Calcutta, which was held that in view of the statutory provisions insurer is liable for compensation. Thus, the liability of the insurer commenced as soon as a policy of insurance is issued covering a vehicle no matter whether first premium is paid or not. In the instant case, the learned Advocate submits that on 27.11.95, the first premium was yet to be paid and, therefore, appellant is not liable but there is no doubt that before first premium is paid, the insurance cover was issued and, therefore, they are liable for compensation. 7. The learned Advocate for the appellant further draws our attention to an observation made by the Tribunal judge in the Case under Section 140 M. V. Act wherein the learned Judge of the Tribunal absolved the insurance company of its liability in view of the fact that the first premium was not paid before the date of accident but order passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is in the nature of the interlocutory order and, therefore, that order can be challenged in these proceedings. The learned Advocate for claimant respondents submits that such order made under Section 140 was bad and is entitled to challenge it. The learned Advocate for claimant respondents submits that such order made under Section 140 was bad and is entitled to challenge it. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court such observations by the tribunal was bad in law. 8. Thus, in view of the proceedings of Section 147(5) and 149(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant became liable to indemnify the third party in respect of the liability which that policy covered and to satisfy the awards of compensation in respect thereof. It is well-settled that the covering note of the insurance policy is a certificate insurance for the purpose of determining the liability and the insurance company cannot avoid its liability to pay compensation simply on the ground that premium in respect of such insurance policy is yet to be paid. No other points which is sustainable in law having been taken in the grounds of appeal, we find that this appeal is not maintainable in view of the decisions as referred to above. It is not the case of the appellant that they have obtained the leave as contemplated under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and, therefore, they are not entitled to challenge the compensation awarded. Thus, we do not find any substance in this appeal and it is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. And, accordingly, it is dismissed with costs. Before we conclude, we want to put in record that Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation intended to protect the interest of the injured and/or the victim of accidents caused by Motor Vehicles but the insurance company, as in the present case, is trying to defeat the claim of the claimant by way of putting some objections which are not sustainable in law. It has become the practice for the insurer to somehow thwart or to delay the legitimate claim of the victim or injured. It cannot be their luxury to entangle the survivors of the victim to costly litigation. So, we are of the view that the insurance company should be saddled with heavy cost. Cost accordingly assessed at Rs.10,000/-. The appellant should pay the award as well as the cost to the claimant respondent within a month. S. K. Sen, J.: I agree. Later-Let the statutory deposit lying with the Registrar General be permitted to be withdrawn as prayed for on proper identification.