JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann, J.:-Judgment passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barnala on 23.11.1994, while awarding a sum of Rs.65,000/- with interest to the claimants/respondents No 1 to 6 and payable by Insurance Company­appellant, is under challenge in the present appeal. 2. The claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the claimants/respondents No.1 to 6 on the ground that on 9.1.1993 at about 1.00 PM, bus bearing registration No PJG-7510 was driven by Sohan Singh, Driver-respondent No.7 in a rash and negligent manner. The same hit Smt. Tej Kaur, who suffered injuries and died on account thereof. Accordingly, the claim petition was filed seeking the grant of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The Driver, besides Depot Manager and Managing Director/Chairman of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala (for short ‘P.R.T.C.’), owners of the bus, denied the allegations levelled by the claimants. However, the Insurance Company filed a separate written statement, wherein the factum of accident was denied and it was specifically pleaded that it was not liable to indemnify the owners of the bus even though on 28.8.1991, it had insured 1050 buses of P.R.T.C. including the offending bus and issued a cover note, which was valid for a period of 30 days, yet during the said period, the Insurance Company served a notice dated 18.9.1991 informing P.R.T.C. that the said cover note and the consequent risk coverage would stand cancelled after seven days, i.e. from midnight of September 25, 1991. Aggrieved of the notice issued by the Insurance Company, P.R.T.C. filed a civil suit, which was still pending at that time. In the said suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. was also filed by P.R.T.C. seeking temporary injunction against cancellation of cover note which was granted by learned Civil Judge and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company dismissed by the Appellate Court. Thereafter a revision had been filed in the High Court. It was only on account of the issuance of injunction order which was still operating against the Insurance Company that the insurance risk qua the bus was covered, otherwise the coverage of insurance risk ceased with effect from 25.9.1991 midnight. 4. At the trial of the claim petition, the following issues were framed:­ “1. It was only on account of the issuance of injunction order which was still operating against the Insurance Company that the insurance risk qua the bus was covered, otherwise the coverage of insurance risk ceased with effect from 25.9.1991 midnight. 4. At the trial of the claim petition, the following issues were framed:­ “1. Whether Tej Kaur died in an accident arising out of the negligent driving of bus No. PJG-7510 by the respondent No.1 on 9.1.1993 in the area of Pakhon Kalan as alleged? OPA. 2. Whether are the claimants the legal representatives of Tej Kaur deceased? OP A. 3 To what amount of compensation, if any are the claimants entitled and from whom? 4 Relief.” 5. After the evidence was led by the parties, learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barnala returned findings in favour of the claimants and also held that as the vehicle involved was undoubtedly insured with the Insurance Company, it was liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.65,000/- along with interest. Hence, the present appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the records placed before me. 7. On 28.8.1991, the Insurance Company initially accepted the offer made by P.R.T.C. for insuring its fleet of 1050 buses, including the bus bearing registration No. PJG-7510. It issued a cover note dated 28.8.1991 which was to remain valid for a period of 30 days from the said date. As is usual, within the said 30 days, the Insurance Company was to issue the detailed policy to P.R.T.C. Further that the insurance cover was to last for a period of one year from 28.8.1991. However, on 18.9.1991 before the expiry of the validity of cover note, it decided to withdraw its offer for providing insurance cover in respect of P.R.T.C. buses. Accordingly, it issued a notice dated 18.9.1991, which was served upon P.R.T.C. on the same day stating therein that the aforementioned cover note and the consequent risk cover would stand cancelled after seven days, i.e., from the midnight of September 25, 1991. This cancellation was challenged by P.R.T.C. by filing a civil suit and obtaining an interim injunction as well. Accordingly, it issued a notice dated 18.9.1991, which was served upon P.R.T.C. on the same day stating therein that the aforementioned cover note and the consequent risk cover would stand cancelled after seven days, i.e., from the midnight of September 25, 1991. This cancellation was challenged by P.R.T.C. by filing a civil suit and obtaining an interim injunction as well. Even if the argument of P.R.T.C. is accepted that an injunction order had been passed in its favour and therefore, the insurance company was liable to provide insurance cover in respect of its buses, yet one thing cannot be forgotten that in any case the insurance cover was to expire at the end of one year period from the date of its commencement, i.e., from August 28, 1991. After August 28, 1992, the fleet of buses of P.R.T.C., including the bus involved in the accident, cannot be said to be covered by the insurance policy. It is nowhere the case of P.R.T.C. that the insurance policy was issued for a longer period than the normal period of one year. There are no pleadings by the P.R.T.C. from which it could be even inferred that the insurance cover, which commenced on August 28, 1991 was still in force on 9.1.1993 when the accident in question had taken place with the offending bus. 8. The plea of P.R.T.C. that it had challenged notice dated 18.9.1991 cancelling the cover note and the consequent risk cover and had also obtained an interim order against the insurance company would not be considered as extension of the insurance cover uptil 9.1.1993. Its argument is that neither the cover note nor the risk coverage could be cancelled by the Insurance Company. In case the accident in question had taken place within the validity period, i.e., before August 28, 1992, one could considered the argument of P.R.T.C. to be having some force. When it is clearly shown that the accident had taken place on 9.1.1993 and the coverage of the risk started from August 28, 1991 and could at the most remain in force upto August 28, 1992, the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with liability for paying the amount of compensation on account of the accident, caused by the offending bus, in which Smt. Tej Kaur lost her life on account of rash and negligent driving by Sohan Singh, Driver. The learned Tribunal was not justified in concluding that the vehicle involved was undoubtedly insured with the Insurance Company. 9. A half-hearted argument was raised by learned counsel for respondents No.8 and 9 that although the civil suit filed by P.R.T.C. against the cancellation of the cover note and the risk coverage was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala on 29.4.1997, yet the appeal filed by P.R.T.C. against the same was accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala on 9.2.1998. Aggrieved of the same, the Insurance Company filed R.S.A. No. 1138 of 1998, which stands admitted in this Court. Further that for an accident which had taken place on 26.5.1992 in which one Ram Kumar had died, his wife, children and parents filed a claim petition, i.e., M.A.C.T. No. 112 on 29.10.1992, which was decided by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala on 29.7.1993. In the said claim petition, one other bus bearing registration No. PB-11-B-9374, owned by P.R.T.C., was involved. The said bus also similarly stood insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. While accepting the claim petition, learned Tribunal had directed that the Insurance Company would be liable to pay the amount awarded, but the same would be subject to the decision of the civil suit said to be pending between the parties regarding the fact that as to whether the bus in question was insured or not. Aggrieved of the same, P.R.T.C. filed F.A.O. No. 50 of 1994 in this Court, which has now been ordered to be heard along with aforementioned R.S.A. No. 1138 of 1998. Accordingly, it was prayed that the present appeal be also directed to be listed for final hearing along with the said second appeal. 10. The question as to whether on 26.5.1992 aforementioned bus bearing registration No PB-11-B-9374 was insured or not is likely to arise in F.A.O. No. 50 of 1994 for the simple reason that the accident had taken place within the one year validity period from the date of issuance of cover note, whereas in the present appeal the accident had taken place within the expiry of one year from the said date. 11. 11. In view of the above, the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal on issue No.3 requires to be is modified as the appellant­ Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.65,000/- along with interest, but it would be respondents No.8 and 9, i.e. owners of the offending bus who would be responsible for paying the sum. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the judgment dated 23.11.1994 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barnala is modified, by burdening respondents No.8 and 9, i.e. owners of the offending bus, of the liability of paying Rs.65,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application, i.e., 6.4.1993 till payment. However, other directions contained in the relief clause of the impugned judgment are maintained. ———————