Judgment ( 1. ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of M. A. Nos. 1836, 1855, 1856, 2215, 2300, 2349 and 2377 of 2005 as all the claim cases are arising out of one accident and has been disposed of by common award. Apart from this, in all the cases parties are one and the same except the claimant. So far as M. A. Nos. 2215, 2300, 2377 and 2349 of 2005 are concerned, all the appeals are filed by claimants, while m. A. Nos. 1711, 1836, 1855 and 1856 of 2005, are concerned, all the appeals are filed by the owner. ( 2. ) SHORT facts of the case are that in a vehicular accident which took place on 20. 1. 1999 between bus bearing registration no. GJ 8-U 1110 and truck bearing registration No. GJ 17-X 3435 Bhaskarrao, jayashri, Babulal and Vimlabai died. Their legal representatives filed the claim case wherein it was alleged that the deceased persons were travelling in the bus, at the relevant time which was going from Indore to Ahmedabad. It was alleged that at the relevant time, the offending bus was being driven by respondent No. 3, owned by the appellant and insured with respondent No. 4. It was further alleged that the offending truck with whom the bus met with an accident was owned by the respondent No. 5, driven by respondent No. 6 and insured with respondent No. 7. It was alleged that the offending bus was driven rashly and negligently with the result offending bus dashed offending truck which was stationed on the roadside and in the said accident bhaskarrao, Jayashri, Babulal and Vimlabai died. The case was contested by respondent Nos. 4 and 7 on various grounds. Respondent No. 4 also took the plea that the offending bus was got insured with respondent No. 4 at about 4 p. m. while the accident took place at about 5 a. m. It was alleged that since the vehicle was not insured at the relevant time, therefore, the respondent No. 4 is not liable for payment of compensation. ( 3. ) AFTER framing of all the issues and recording of evidence, the learned Tribunal allowed all the claim cases and awarded compensation in each of the claim case against the appellant and respondent No. 3 and exonerated respondent Nos. 4 to 7. ( 3. ) AFTER framing of all the issues and recording of evidence, the learned Tribunal allowed all the claim cases and awarded compensation in each of the claim case against the appellant and respondent No. 3 and exonerated respondent Nos. 4 to 7. Respondent No. 4 was exonerated on the ground that offending bus was not insured with respondent No. 4 at the relevant time. Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 were exonerated on the ground that as per pleadings and also on the basis of evidence, it is amply proved that driver of the offending bus of whose rash and negligent driving the accident occurred, hence the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 cannot be held liable for the payment of compensation. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount awarded and exoneration of respondent Nos. 4 to 7, all the claimants have filed the appeal, while being aggrieved by the exoneration of respondent No. 4, appellant the owner of the bus have also filed the appeal. Particulars including the amount awarded in all the cases are as under: ( 4. ) IN M. A. Nos. 2377 and 2300 of 2005, appellants are the claimants while in M. A. Nos. 1711 and 1836 of 2005, the appellant is owner of the offending bus. Thus, two appeals are by claimants and two appeals are by owner. In each of the claim case the break-up of amount awarded is as under: ( 5. ) MR. Vinay Vijaywargiya, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal committed error in exonerating the respondent No. 4 on the ground that vehicle was not insured at the relevant time. Learned counsel submits that from perusal of the policy which is Exh. D1 it is evident that on the date of accident the offending bus was insured from 00. 00 hours. It is submitted that the accident took place at 5 a. m. on 20. 1. 1999 and the offending vehicle was insured from 12 p. m. from the intervening night of 19/20. 1. 1999, therefore, at the relevant time the bus was duly insured and there was no justification on the part of learned Tribunal in exonerating respondent No. 4. ( 6. ) THE learned counsel further submits that even if it is assumed that there was a mistake on the part of office of respondent no. 1. 1999, therefore, at the relevant time the bus was duly insured and there was no justification on the part of learned Tribunal in exonerating respondent No. 4. ( 6. ) THE learned counsel further submits that even if it is assumed that there was a mistake on the part of office of respondent no. 4 as the vehicle was insured w. e. f. 20. 1. 1999 from 00. 00 hours, then too, the respondent No. 4 could not have been exonerated. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of madhukuri Raghu Ram Murthy v. Koyyada sakku Bai, 2006 ACJ 2194 (AP), wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the similar circumstance where the accident took place at 10. 30 a. m. and the proposal form was submitted at 5. 45 p. m. on the date of accident and cover note/policy was issued mentioning that policy commences from 00. 00 hours and the Development officer of insurance company deposed that time in the policy was mentioned by mistake which was subsequently rectified, it was held that the mistake pleaded cannot be accepted as the court has to go by the documents available on record. It was held that insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. It was further observed that in view of law laid down by Honble Apex court when the time and date is mentioned in the insurance policy, it comes into effect from the time and date mentioned in the insurance policy and the company is liable to pay the compensation. Further reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of prakash v. Amrutlal, 1996 ACJ 940 (MP), where the accident took place at 5. 30 p. m. on 22. 4. 1991 and the insurance policy was taken at 9 p. m. and in the cover note time was mentioned as 9 p. m. whereas in the certificate of insurance date of commencement of policy has been mentioned as 22. 4. 1991 and no time was specified, a division Bench of this court held that section 146 of the Act indicates the legislative intent that not only every motor vehicle should be insured before it can be used in a public place but that the insurance should be operative against third party risk. 4. 1991 and no time was specified, a division Bench of this court held that section 146 of the Act indicates the legislative intent that not only every motor vehicle should be insured before it can be used in a public place but that the insurance should be operative against third party risk. Further reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of Jaikrishandas v. Chiruthai ammal, 1984 ACJ 530 (Madras), wherein in a case where accident took place at about 10. 30 a. m. and policy was effective from the date of accident with no reference to any time, a Division Bench of Madras high Court held that policy is effective at the time of the accident and policy deemed to be effective from the midnight between the date of policy and the previous day, hence the insurer is liable. Reliance was also placed on a decision in the matter of maya Devi v. Hoob Raj, 1988 ACJ 478 (Pandh), wherein High Court of Punjab and haryana in a case where the accident took place at about 7. 30 a. m. and the policy was taken on the same day after opening of the office and insurance company disputed its liability on the ground that the policy was obtained after the accident, it was held that the policy would operate from the previous night. Further reliance was placed on a decision in the case of Samotiya v. Harbansh, 1999 ACJ 579 (MP), wherein this court has observed that in a case where there is no specific stipulation with regard to commencement of policy from a particular hour, insurance cover is operative from midnight of the date on which insurance is obtained and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Lastly, the reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal, 1990 ACJ 545 (SC), wherein honble Supreme Court has observed that when a policy is taken on a particular date, its effectiveness is from the commencement of that date. ( 7. ) ON the strength of aforesaid position of law, learned counsel for the offending bus owner submits that the learned Tribunal committed error in exonerating the respondent No. 4 and also amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side. ( 8. ) MRS. ( 7. ) ON the strength of aforesaid position of law, learned counsel for the offending bus owner submits that the learned Tribunal committed error in exonerating the respondent No. 4 and also amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side. ( 8. ) MRS. Sudha Shrivastava, the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that so far as amount awarded by the learned tribunal is concerned, is just and proper. It is submitted that learned Tribunal has rightly exonerated respondent No. 4 as in the cover note itself it was mentioned that the policy was effective from 4 p. m. It is submitted that before the learned Tribunal, Development Officer of the insurance company was examined, who has stated that Haji Mohd. , the appellant, has made a categorical statement that no accident has taken place prior to insurance. Apart from this, it was submitted that undoubtedly in the policy it was mentioned 00. 00 hours but it was the mistake of computer and no advantage can be given to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are claimants on that count. ( 9. ) LEARNED counsel placed reliance on a decision of Honble Apex Court in the matter of J. Kalaivani v. K. Sivashankar, 2002 ACJ 613 (SC), wherein policy expired by midnight of 7. 2. 1996 and owner obtained another policy which was made specifically operative from 10. 00 a. m. on 8. 2. 1996 and there was no policy from 12 in midnight till 10 a. m. while accident took place on 8. 2. 1996 at about 4. 30 a. m. , it was held that the erstwhile policy shows that it expired by midnight of 7. 2. 1996 by specific terms incorporated in policy. The next policy has clearly indicated that it has commenced only at 10 a. m. on 8. 2. 1996. The interregnum created the void in respect of the vehicle vis-a-vis the insurance company. The unavoidable consequence of it is that the insurance company cannot now be mulcted with the liability in respect of the award granted by the Tribunal. Reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of new India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sita Bai, 2000 ACJ 40 (SC), wherein the accident occurred at 10 a. m. on 16. 4. 1987 and the policy was obtained at 9 p. m. on the same date. Reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of new India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sita Bai, 2000 ACJ 40 (SC), wherein the accident occurred at 10 a. m. on 16. 4. 1987 and the policy was obtained at 9 p. m. on the same date. Honble Apex Court held that policy is effective from the midnight between 15. 4. 1987 and 16. 4. 1987 and the insurance company is not liable as the policy records the date and time of commencement which is after the accident. Further reliance was placed on a decision in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi, 1998 acj 121 (SC), wherein accident occurred at 2. 20 p. m. and cover note contains an express mention that the effective date and time of commencement of insurance is 2. 55 p. m. , Honble Apex Court held that the insurance company is not liable. Further reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi, 1997 ACJ 351 (SC), wherein specific time was mentioned in the policy and the accident occurred earlier. Honble Apex Court held that the claimants cannot seek recovery of amount from the insurance company. Reliance was placed on a decision of Division Bench of this court in the matter of Ram Singh v. Ashok Sharma, 2004 ACJ 1570 (MP), wherein the accident occurred on 19. 7. 91 at about 12 noon and policy commenced as per record of insurance company at 5 p. m. on the date of accident, it was held that insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation. Another decision of which reliance was placed in the matter of Suresh Chand Awasthi v. Ajesh Kumar choubey, 2001 ACJ 177 (MP), wherein proposal form was submitted by insured at 3. 15 p. m. on 10. 12. 1991 and the accident took place at 12 noon, it was held that the cover note would be treated as policy of insurance, proposal form which indicates that insurance was sought at 3. 15 p. m. on 10. 12. 1991 and it cannot have retrospective effect. Lastly, reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Geetha, 2006 ACJ 700 (Madras), wherein Division Bench of High court of Madras in a case where the accident occurred at 5. 30 a. m. on 15. 6. 15 p. m. on 10. 12. 1991 and it cannot have retrospective effect. Lastly, reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Geetha, 2006 ACJ 700 (Madras), wherein Division Bench of High court of Madras in a case where the accident occurred at 5. 30 a. m. on 15. 6. 1998 and the policy was operative from 10 a. m. held that unless insurance company accepts and issues policy it has no obligation to pay compensation. ( 10. ) IN view of the aforesaid position of law, the learned counsel submits that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed. ( 11. ) UNDISPUTEDLY, the accident occurred on 20. 1. 1999 at 5. 30 a. m. while the insurance policy was opted on 20. 1. 1999 at 4 p. m. and in the insurance policy it was specifically mentioned that the offending vehicle is insured w. e. f. 00. 00 hours on 20. 1. 1999 to 19. 1. 2000 which covers the time when accident occurred. Insurance company examined K. S. Rathi as AW 3, who is the Development Officer of the insurance company and who has stated on oath that when the appellant the owner of the offending bus came to me for insurance of the offending bus at that time he asked the appellant the information regarding the previous policy. It was further stated by him that the appellant informed that since the offending bus has been transferred, the appellant wants to get the offending bus insured. It is further stated by K. S. Rathi that the policy was effective from 4 p. m. on 20. 1. 1999 but because of mistake of computer 00. 00 hours was mentioned in the policy. It was also stated by him that appellant owner of the offending bus was asked whether any accident has occurred then it was stated by the appellant that no accident has occurred with the offending bus. It was also stated by K. S. Rathi that the moment, the mistake came to the notice of insurance company, a notice Exh. D6 was issued to the appellant whereby the appellant was asked to produce the cover note and it was also informed that the policy shall be enforced w. e. f. 20. 1. It was also stated by K. S. Rathi that the moment, the mistake came to the notice of insurance company, a notice Exh. D6 was issued to the appellant whereby the appellant was asked to produce the cover note and it was also informed that the policy shall be enforced w. e. f. 20. 1. 1999 from 4 p. m. The statement of K. S. Rathi has been believed by the learned Tribunal. There is nothing in the cross-examination which goes to show that the statement of k. S. Rathi is unbelievable. Appellant the owner of the offending bus did not prefer to come in witness-box. ( 12. ) THE sum and substance of the aforesaid case-law is that the insurance policy comes into force with effect from the date and time mentioned in the policy or the cover note. Since the time mentioned in the policy was 00. 00 hours on 20. 1. 1999, the offending bus was insured at the relevant time when the accident occurred but since it is proved by the insurance company by cogent evidence that the appellant made a statement that no accident has occurred and the policy was obtained at 4 p. m. and the 00. 00 hours was mentioned in the policy because of the mistake of computer for which the notice Exh. D6 was issued to the appellant for the production of the cover note, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the insurance company is not liable for the payment of compensation and was exonerated. ( 13. ) SO far as the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus is concerned, the case of the claimants was that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently which dashed the stationary truck. The respondent Nos. 5 to 7 have rightly been exonerated by the learned Tribunal. ( 14. ) SO far as the amount of compensation is concerned, since in the motor accident the injured died, it appears that the amount awarded is on lower side. The appellants of M. A. No. 2215 of 2005 shall be further entitled for a sum of Rs. 25,000 while appellants of M. A. Nos. 2300, 2377 and 2349 of 2005 shall be further entitled for a sum of Rs. 50,000 each. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 7. The appellants of M. A. No. 2215 of 2005 shall be further entitled for a sum of Rs. 25,000 while appellants of M. A. Nos. 2300, 2377 and 2349 of 2005 shall be further entitled for a sum of Rs. 50,000 each. The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of 7. 5 per cent from the date of filing of the application till realisation. ( 15. ) WITH the aforesaid modifications, all the appeals filed by the claimants and the appellants of the offending bus stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Orders accordingly.