Judgment : 1. The second respondent/ Insurance Company in the O.P. is the appellant herein. Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed an O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.1 lakh. 2. Thecase of the claimants is as follows: On 6.9.1993 at about 7.00 hrs, the second claimant and his eldest daughter Koilmani went to the house of the second claimants elder sisters house and while returning back to the petitioners house, they were proceeding on the western direction. The deceased was proceeding on the western direction. The deceased was proceeding ahead of the second claimant. At that time, the lorry belonging to the first respondent driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased the after the accident, the driver ran away from the spot. The lorry belonging to the first respondent is insured with the second respondent/ Insurance Company. Hence, the claimant filed the C.P. claiming compensation Rs.one lakh. 3. Thefirst respondent filed counter raising the following contentions. The accident occurred not due to the negligence of the lorry driver. The deceased who was a child suddenly crossed the road from west towards east and at that time, the first respondents driver swerved the lorry towards the right side. The amount claimed as compensation is excessive. 4. The case of the second respondent is as follows: The averments in the petition that the deceased was earning Rs.5 per day as coolie is not true. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. This respondent denies that the driver of the first respondent had valid licence to drive the vehicle. The accident occurred on 6.9.1993. But the first respondent has insured the vehicle with this respondent only on 7.9.1993. As there is no policy covering the time of the accident, this respondent cannot be held liable to pay compensation. 5. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.70,000. The Tribunal has held that both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the above amount. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal. 6. Thefindings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the first respondent are not challenged in this appeal. The Tribunal has held that both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the above amount. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal. 6. Thefindings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the first respondent are not challenged in this appeal. The quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal is also not challenged by the appellant. The only contention of the appellant/ Insurance Company is that on the date of the accident i.e., on 6.9.1993, the vehicle was not insured with them and that the vehicle was insured only with effect from 7.9.1993 and that therefore, they are not liable to pay the compensation. 7. R.W.1, the officer employed in the second respondent company, has produced the insurance policies and the same was marked as Exs.R-1 and R-2. The Tribunal has held that the vehicle was insured with the second respondent even prior to the accident and that therefore, the Insurance Company ought to have made an enquiry as to whether any accident occurred on 6.9.1993 and that the Insurance Company had knowledge about the accident. In support of the same, the Tribunal also relies upon a decision reported in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Bunty and others United India Insurance Company Limited v. Bunty and others United India Insurance Company Limited v. Bunty and others A.I.R. 1995 J. & K. 72: 1995 A.C.J. 1168. It is seen from the facts of the above case that the accident occurred on 27.12.1990 and a fresh policy was taken by the owner on 27.12.1990. The accident in the above case took place at about 10.00 a.m. on 27.12.1990 and the insurance policy was effective from 4.00 p.m. on the same day. It was contended by the Insurance Company in that case that as the vehicle was not insured at the time of the accident, they are not liable to pay compensation. The Jammu and Kashmir High Court following the decision reported in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Ram Dayal 1990 A.C.J. 545 (S.C.) rejected the contention raised by the Insurance Company. The Jammu and Kashmir High Court following the decision reported in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Ram Dayal 1990 A.C.J. 545 (S.C.) rejected the contention raised by the Insurance Company. The Court has held that on 27.12.1990, the owner approached the Insurance Company and that on the same day, the company insured the vehicle and accepted the premium and that it was the duty of the Insurance Company to ascertain whether the vehicle was involved in any accident from 20.12.1990 upto 26.12.1990. I am unable to accept the above finding of Tribunal in view of the following decision of Supreme Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon certain other decisions which would show that the judgment of the Supreme Courti.e., Ram Dayal has been distinguished by the Apex Court. The Apex Court has clearly held that if the policy was not effective from the time of the accident, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Sunita Rathi 1998 A.C.J. 121 the Apex Court distinguishing 1990 A.C.J. 545 (S.C.), has held thus: “In such a situation, it was held in Ram Dayls case, that in the absence of any specific time being mentioned, the logical inference to draw was that the insurance became effective from the previous midnight and, therefore, for an accident which took place on the date of the policy, the insurer became liable. There is no such difficulty in the present case in view of the clear finding based on undisputed facts that the accident occurred at 2.20 p.m. and that cover note was obtained only thereafter at 2.55 p.m. in which it was expressly mentioned that the effective date and time of commencement of the insurance for the purpose of the Act was 10.12.1991 at 2.55 p.m. The reliance on Ram Dayals case by the Tribunal and the High Court was, therefore misplaced.” The facts of the above case will show that the accident occurred at 2.20 p.m. and the insurance cover was obtained only at 2.45 p.m. The Apex Court in the above decision has clearly held that as the cover note contains the effective date and commencement of insurance from particular hour, the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with any liability for the accident occurred at 2.20 p.m. on the same day. It is not well settled that if the insurance policy contains a clause that the contract would commence from particular hour, then the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation for the accident occurred prior to the commencement of the policy. In a recent judgment of the Apex Court reported in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Sita Bai 2000 A.C.J. 40 the Apex Court has held that the accident occurred at 10.00 a.m. on 16.4.1987 and the policy was obtained at 9.00 p.m. on the same date and that in the above circumstances, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. The Apex Court has also held in the above case thus: “In New India Assurance Company Limited v. Bhagwati Devi 1999 A.C.J. 534 (S.C.) a three Judge Bench of this Court relied upon the view taken in National Insurance Company Limited v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi National Insurance Company Limited v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi National Insurance Company Limited v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi 1997 A.C.J. 351 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that if there is a special contract, mentioning in the policy the time when it was bought, the insurance policy would be operative from that time and not from the previous midnight as was the case in Ram Dayal where no time from which the insurance policy was to become effective had been mentioned. It was held that should there be no contract to the contrary, an insurance policy become operative from the previous midnight, when bought during the day following, but, in cases where there is a mention of the specific time for the purchase of the policy, then a special contract comes into being and the policy becomes effective from the time mentioned in the cover note/ of the policy itself. The judgment in Jikubhais case has been subsequently followed in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Sunita Rathi 1998 A.C.J. 121 (S.C.) by a three Judge Bench of this Court also.” It is also clearly held that if no time is mentioned for the commencement of the policy, then the policy would become operative from midnight. 9. In a recent decision, this Court has also taken a similar view in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Anandavelu (2000)3 C.T.C. 212 . In the above decision, this Court has held that proposal was submitted and premium was paid on 17.11.1992. 9. In a recent decision, this Court has also taken a similar view in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Anandavelu (2000)3 C.T.C. 212 . In the above decision, this Court has held that proposal was submitted and premium was paid on 17.11.1992. But the Insurance Company accepted the proposal on 18.11.1992 and that as contract was concluded only on 18.11.1992 and that as contract was concluded only on 18.11.1992 the Insurance Company is not liable for the accident that occurred on 17.11.1992. In the above decision, it is also specifically held that the principle that commencement of contract shall be operative from midnight would apply only in the absence of special contract. If the policies marked on this case are analysed in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the findings of the Tribunal on this aspect cannot be sustained. 10. It is seen from Ex.R-1, that the vehicle was insured for the period from 3.2.1993 till 27.8.1993 midnight. But the policy was not renewed till 6.9.1993. Ex.R-2, the policy will show that fresh policy was taken on 7.9.1993 and it would expire on the midnight of 6.9.1994. It is also specifically mentioned that the policy would commence from 2.40 p.m. from 7.9.1993. It is, thus, clear that on 6.9.1993, the vehicle was not insured with the appellant/ Insurance Company. If that is so, I fail to understand as to how the appellant is liable to answer the claim of the claimants. 11. Learned counsel for the claimants/ respondents relies upon decision reported in Pradash v. Amrutlal 1996 A.C.J. 940 (M.P.). It is held in the above decision that so far as the claimant is concerned the vehicle stood insured on the date when the accident took place and that it is the insurance policy and not the cover note which covers the risk and determines the right and liabilities of the parties. The Court has held that mentioning of time in the cover note, even if true, cannot destroy the worth and effect of the policy. The facts of the above case will not apply to this case. Further, in view of the latest law declared by the Apex Court, the judgment the Madhya Pradesh High Court, referred to above, will not assist the case of the claimant in any way. 12. The facts of the above case will not apply to this case. Further, in view of the latest law declared by the Apex Court, the judgment the Madhya Pradesh High Court, referred to above, will not assist the case of the claimant in any way. 12. It is, thus, seen from the facts of this case that the vehicle was not insured on the date of the accident. The policy became effective only with effect from 240 p.m. on 7.9.1993. Therefore, it has to be held that the Insurance Company cannot be added with any liability. The findings of the Tribunal that the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with any liability. The findings of the Tribunal that the Insurance Company failed to ascertain whether any accident occurred to the vehicle prior to 7.9.1993 cannot be sustained. Therefore, I hold that the award passed against the appellant/ Insurance Company is liable to be set aside. 13. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed. No costs. The award, in so far as it relates to the appellants liability, is set aside and in other respects, the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. It is seen that the appellant has deposited the entire amount and that the claimants have also withdrawn 50% amount. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the balance amount and recover the remaining amount from the 0owner. The claimants are directed to proceed against the owner for recovery of the balance amount.