JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, in M.A.C.P. No. 35-S/2 of 1996 decided on 29.12.2000. 2. This appeal has been filed by the insurance company and the only point raised in the appeal is that the cover note was issued after the accident had taken place. According to the insurance company, the owner by misrepresenting the facts had obtained insurance policy after the accident had taken. The defence of the insurance company has been stated in preliminary objection Nos. 1 and 1-A of its reply which reads as follows: (1) That the policy No. 23512/011/ 00000/31/96/00736 hereinafter called as policy qua the offending bus No. HP 11-0555 had been obtained by concealing the factum of accident knowingly and deliberately by the insured and driver. As such the policy is void for non-disclosure of material facts. The replying respondent is, therefore, not liable to indemnify the insured in case liability comes upon him. In fact, earlier the bus was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period 8.10.1994 to 7.10.1995 vide policy No. 421102/ 6301178/94 which was not got renewed in time. On 8.10.1995 at 1 p.m. the accident took place and F.I.R. No. 107 of 1995 qua this accident was registered by the police of Police Station, Dharampur. At about 3 p.m. on 8.10.1995 the representative of insured approached Geeta Ram, Development Officer and asked him to insure the bus, whereupon, after inspecting the bus, he (Geeta Ram) issued cover note No. 196971 at 3.15 p.m. on 8.10.1995. At the time of making proposal for insurance, the insured and driver deliberately and knowingly concealed the factum of accident and as such this non-disclosure of material fact had rendered the policy void ab initio. (1-A) That the policy was effective w.e.f. 3.15 p.m. of 8.10.1995. Since the accident took place before the issuance of policy/cover note, the replying respondent is not liable as no risk was covered at the time of the accident. 3. To appreciate this contention of the insurance company, it would be apposite to refer to the statements of certain witnesses. Rakesh Kumar, RW 1, is the Secretary of the Employed Youth Forum Cooperative Transport Private Limited, Arki. He was the owner of the bus in question. 3. To appreciate this contention of the insurance company, it would be apposite to refer to the statements of certain witnesses. Rakesh Kumar, RW 1, is the Secretary of the Employed Youth Forum Cooperative Transport Private Limited, Arki. He was the owner of the bus in question. According to him, bus No. HP 11-0555 owned by the society was previously insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. which insurance expired on 7.10.1995. This witness states that on 8.10.1995 at about 7 in the morning, he had paid the premium to Geeta Ram, the Development Officer of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thereafter, the policy, Exh. RW 1A, was issued by the insurance company. He states that it was valid from 8.10.1995 to 7.10.1996. The accident in question admittedly had taken place at about 1 p.m. on 8.10.1995. The insurance company in cross-examination has suggested that the premium was paid at 3.15 p.m. and not at 7 a.m. The witness has denied this suggestion. The witness also denied the suggestion that the policy was effective only from 3.15 p.m. on 8.10.95. 4. Insurance company examined K.B. Gupta, Branch Manager. According to him, the cover note issued in the case is Exh. RW 3B. He states that in this cover note, it is clear that the policy was issued at 3.15 p.m. on 8.10.1995. He states that this cover note was issued by Geeta Ram. In cover note at portion encircled as 'A' words 3.15 p.m. do find mention just above the date 8.10.1995. He also in cross-examination admitted that he has not brought the original policy of insurance. Exh. RW 3A is only the attested copy of the same. The witness also did not bring the other record relating to the issuance of the policy in question. He has also admitted that in the policy, it is not mentioned that the same is effective from a particular time. It is only mentioned that the same is effective from 8.10.1995. 5. Geeta Ram appeared as RW 4 and According to him, the cover note, Exh. RW 3B was issued at about 3.15 p.m. at Dharampur. He states that about two hours before issuing the cover note he had physically seen the vehicle. According to him, this vehicle was shown to him by Rakesh Kumar, PW 1, at bus stand, Dharampur. 6. Geeta Ram appeared as RW 4 and According to him, the cover note, Exh. RW 3B was issued at about 3.15 p.m. at Dharampur. He states that about two hours before issuing the cover note he had physically seen the vehicle. According to him, this vehicle was shown to him by Rakesh Kumar, PW 1, at bus stand, Dharampur. 6. In the policy of insurance, there is a column which reads as follows: Effective date of commencement of insurance for the purpose of the Act from...o'clock on (date) 8.10.1995....Date of expiry of insurance midnight of (date) 7.10.1996.... 7. The insurance company for reasons best known to it did not fill in the time and only filled in the date. In case they wanted that the policy should be effective only from 3.15 p.m., in the policy also the words 3.15 p.m. should have been mentioned when there is a specific column for the time. In case the same is not filled in then, natural consequence is that the insurance company is deemed to have insured the vehicle from 00:00 hours, i.e., the midnight of the night intervening 7/8.10.1995. 8. I find from the evidence on record that the conduct of Development Officer is definitely not above board. According to him, he had inspected the bus at the bus stand at Dharampur at about 1.15 p.m. Admittedly, the accident had already taken place at 1 p.m. Dharampur is a very small town and in case Geeta Ram had actually inspected the vehicle, he would have known that it had been involved in an accident. Geeta Ram is posted at Solan. How and why he had gone to Dharampur has not been explained. Why was he at Dharampur from 1.15 p.m. when he allegedly inspected the vehicle till 3.15 p.m. when the policy was alleged to be issued? 9. The case of the insurance company may be correct that the cover note was obtained after the accident had already taken place. However, this cover note even if it was issued after the accident, has been issued in connivance with the officials of the appellant insurance company especially the Development Officer, Geeta Ram. Nothing has been placed on record to show what action the insurance company has taken on the administrative side to find out under what circumstances the insurance policy was issued. Nothing has been placed on record to show what action the insurance company has taken on the administrative side to find out under what circumstances the insurance policy was issued. In my view, in the light of the fact and evidence discussed above, it cannot be said that the insurance policy was effective only from 3.15 p.m. It also cannot be said that the policy was obtained by misrepresentation. It may be true that the policy was obtained after the accident but this could have only been done in connivance with the officials of the insurance company. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal of the insurance company and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. 10. It is, however, made clear that the insurance company may take appropriate action to find out which officials of the company acted in connivance with the owner of the bus and it shall be free to take appropriate action against the said officials.