Judgment ( 1. ) THE present appeals have been preferred by insurance company against the awards passed by the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), jabalpur (for short, the Tribunal)in respect of Claim Case Nos. 179, 181 and 182 of 2002 which were filed in respect of the accident occurred on 28. 4. 1998 by the truck No. MP 21-6843. ( 2. ) IN the aforesaid cases the claim has been allowed by the Tribunal and the liability has been fastened on the insurance company, i. e. , the appellant herein. The learned counsel for the appellant has made a singular submission assailing the finding arrived at by the Tribunal with regard to the issue No. 4 which has been dealt with by the Tribunal in paras 23 to 34 of its award. It was contended before the Tribunal by the present appellant insurer that there had been no insurance of the truck on the date when the accident has occurred. ( 3. ) THE facts that are essential to be stated are that the original owner of the truck was one Pushpendra Singh. The aforesaid truck was purchased by Ashish Mittal in the month of January 1998. The validity of the old policy was for the period from 13. 3. 1997 to 12. 3. 1998. The policy has been brought on record as Exh. D7. ( 4. ) THE insurance premium was received by the agent of the insurer Dipak Bhalla on 10. 3. 1997 and a receipt, Exh. D12c, was also issued. While receiving the premium the agent of the insurer, Dipak Bhalla, also issued a cover note, Exh. D1. While issuing the said cover note the period of insurance has been shown as 13. 12. 97 to 12. 12. 1998, thereafter the policy was also issued by the appellant. Exh. D2, wherein the period of insurance is also shown as 13. 12. 1997 to 12. 12. 1998. ( 5. ) THE defence of the insurance company before the Tribunal was that because of the mistake in the cover note the period of insurance was shown as 13. 12. 1997 to 12. 12. 1998 though the actual period should have been mentioned in the cover note as 13. 3. 97 to 12. 3. 1998. 12. 1998. ( 5. ) THE defence of the insurance company before the Tribunal was that because of the mistake in the cover note the period of insurance was shown as 13. 12. 1997 to 12. 12. 1998 though the actual period should have been mentioned in the cover note as 13. 3. 97 to 12. 3. 1998. Before the Tribunal, development Officer Dipak Bhalla was examined by the insurer, he has testified that after the mistake came to his notice he wrote a letter to Pushpendra Singh, Exh. D5 on 11. 3. 1997 that the original cover note be returned to him as the mistake has occurred in the said cover note with regard to the period of the policy. The letter, annexure D5, was also sent to Pushpendra singh through the postal certificate. ( 6. ) ON the basis of the aforesaid facts the Tribunal came to the conclusion that despite the mistake which came to the notice of the Development Officer Dipak bhalla with regard to the period of insurance and the letter was also written on 11. 3. 1997, the insurance policy was issued wherein the same period, i. e. , 13. 12. 1997 to 12. 12. 1998 was mentioned. It has also come on record that the endorsement to the policy was also issued by the insurer as per, Exh. D6 dated 31. 3. 1997 and in the said endorsement the period of insurance has been shown as 13. 3. 1997 to 12. 3. 1998. ( 7. ) THE Tribunal on the basis of the aforesaid facts came to the conclusion that after the mistake came to the knowledge of the Development Officer Dipak Bhalla on 11. 3. 1997 then while issuing the policy after 15 days therefrom no correction was made in the insurance policy and the insurance policy has shown a period which was referred to in the cover note, therefore, the defence which was taken by the insurance company was not acceptable. ( 8. ) THE Tribunal consequently held that the policy issued by the insurer was for the period from 13. 12. 1997 to 12. 12. 1998 and accordingly held that on the date of the accident the policy was in operation and, therefore, the insurance company was liable to indemnify the owner. ( 9. ( 8. ) THE Tribunal consequently held that the policy issued by the insurer was for the period from 13. 12. 1997 to 12. 12. 1998 and accordingly held that on the date of the accident the policy was in operation and, therefore, the insurance company was liable to indemnify the owner. ( 9. ) WHETHER the liability has been rightly fixed on the insurance company or not is thrust of the matter to which we are required to revert to. ( 10. ) THERE is no dispute that the policy was in operation during the period from 13. 3. 1997 to 12. 3. 1998 and the truck was purchased by Ashish Mittal in the month of January 1998. Though the intimation as regard the transfer has not been sent to the insurer, the third party liability is not affected. [see G. Govindan v. New India assurance Co. Ltd. , 1999 ACJ 781 (SC)and Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. , 2000 ACJ 319 (SC)]. ( 11. ) THE real crux is whether there was a policy on the date of the accident, i. e. , 28. 4. 1998. ( 12. ) TO appreciate the factual scenario, it would be profitable to refer to certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 146 deals with the necessity for insurance against third party risk. It stipulates that no person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of this Chapter. ( 13. ) SECTION 64-VB of the Insurance act, 1938, prescribes that no risk to be assumed unless premium is received in advance. ( 14. ) THE Apex Court has considered the question in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur, 1998 ACJ 123 (SC) and has held with regard to the issuance of policy by the insurer even without receiving the premium which was said to have been in contravention to the statutory provision as enumerated under section 64-VB of the insurance Act, 1938. ) THE Apex Court has considered the question in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur, 1998 ACJ 123 (SC) and has held with regard to the issuance of policy by the insurer even without receiving the premium which was said to have been in contravention to the statutory provision as enumerated under section 64-VB of the insurance Act, 1938. While dealing with the said question the Supreme Court has opined that merely because the bar has been created by section 64-VB of the insurance Act, not to issue policy without receipt of money it does not allow as a corollary that once the policy has been issued, the insurer can take a defence that policy is void because of non-receipt of premium as if it is automatic. ( 15. ) THE Apex Court had an occasion to consider the said question on the factual backdrop where a cheque was issued by the owner to pay the premium towards the insurance but the cheque was dishonoured, subsequent to the policy already issued and the insurance itself was cancelled. The accident was found to have occurred on the same day when the cheque was issued. ( 16. ) IN the present case, there is no quarrel between the parties that the cheque which was issued on 10. 3. 1997 for which the receipt was also issued as Exh. D12c, there was no accident and the cheque has also (sic not) bounced further there is no quarrel between the parties that the earlier policy existed for a period from 13. 3. 1997 to 12. 3. 1998. ( 17. ) IT is, however, not understood when the policy was already in existence for a period from 13. 12. 1997 to 12. 12. 1998 then what was the necessity to pay the premium by cheque on 10. 3. 1997 for its renewal. The earlier policy was in vogue or not nothing in this regard is proved by the owners of the truck. ( 18. ) APPARENTLY there seems to be no necessity for insurance of the said vehicle by paying premium on 10. 3. 1997. Pushpendra Singh has been examined as PW 2 on behalf of the non-applicant No. 3. No clarification has been given by this witness why the policy was taken to insure the said truck by paying premium on 10. 3. 1997 when the period was intended for 13. 12. 3. 1997. Pushpendra Singh has been examined as PW 2 on behalf of the non-applicant No. 3. No clarification has been given by this witness why the policy was taken to insure the said truck by paying premium on 10. 3. 1997 when the period was intended for 13. 12. 97 to 12. 12. 1998. ( 19. ) ASHISH Mittal, the new truck owner states that the cover note was issued to pushpendra Singh and in the said cover note the period of insurance was shown as 13. 12. 1997 to 12. 12. 1998 and the said cover note was issued on 10. 3. 1997. This witness has stated that he had inquired about the validity period of the insurance in the cover note and at that juncture erstwhile owner Pushpendra Singh had stated that he had just paid the money for the insurance and the cover note has also been issued. ( 20. ) DIPAK Bhalla, Development Officer has been examined by insurance company, who has deposed that while issuing the cover note, Exh. D1, with regard to the period, mistake occurred and it has come on record that an endorsement to amend the period in the policy was also issued and the intimation in this regard was also given to the erstwhile owner Pushpendra singh as per Exh. D6. ( 21. ) ON the basis of the assessment of the facts of the case there is no dispute that under the statute, i. e. , the Motor Vehicles act, 1988, the insurance company shall be liable to indemnify the owners subject to the provisions as contained under sections 146 and 147 of the Act, but the question which has to be seen in the present case is whether on the date of accident there has been a policy in favour of the owners by which the insurer has undertaken to indemnify the owner. ( 22. ) IN view of the endorsement which was already issued by the insurer to correct the duration of the policy, it becomes imperative to conclude that there was no policy at all to cover the risk of accident as on 28. 4. 1998. The period of policy is 13. 3. 1997 to 12. 3. 1998 for which the premium was paid by the erstwhile owner. ( 23. 4. 1998. The period of policy is 13. 3. 1997 to 12. 3. 1998 for which the premium was paid by the erstwhile owner. ( 23. ) THE two witnesses have only stated that the period was mentioned in the cover note as 13. 12. 1997 to 12. 12. 1998, therefore, date of the accident being 24. 8. 1998 gets covered. They have not stated that any extra premium was paid to cover the period even after 12. 3. 1998. ( 24. ) FROM the aforesaid, it is clear that initially a mistake crept in while issuing the cover note with regard to the insurance period but subsequently when the mistake came to the notice of the insurer and much prior to the date of the accident by issuing the endorsement, Exh. D6, the mistake was rectified. The endorsement was received by Pushpendra Singh and the earlier owner in spite of receiving the said endorsement did not object to the change with regard to the period of coverage of the insurance. Exh. D6 the document also shows the signature of Pushpendra Singh with regard to the receiving of the same. The said endorsement was received on 7. 4. 1997 and the accident occurred on 28. 4. 1998. He has also admitted that after the payment was made and cover note was received immediately Dipak Bhalla, Development officer informed him that there had been a mistake in the cover note with regard to the period of policy which requires to be corrected, has further admitted that said dipak Bhalla has also required of him to return the necessary papers but the papers could not be returned to him for its correction. ( 25. ) THE conduct of Pushpendra Singh and Ashish Mittal is also relevant. When the endorsement, Exh. D6 to the policy was received by Pushpendra Singh, the same was not even objected by Pushpendra singh. He accepted endorsement. There is nothing on record that after receiving the endorsement he ever objected to the said endorsement. Thus, on the basis of the conduct of Pushpendra Singh it is apparent that he has also accepted the policy for the period from 13. 3. 1997 to 12. 3. 1998. He accepted endorsement. There is nothing on record that after receiving the endorsement he ever objected to the said endorsement. Thus, on the basis of the conduct of Pushpendra Singh it is apparent that he has also accepted the policy for the period from 13. 3. 1997 to 12. 3. 1998. The effect of such endorsement shall relate back to the date from which the policy was issued and, therefore, it has to be held that there was no policy as such covering the period on which day the accident occurred. ( 26. ) THE insurance company has examined its Manager Sudarshan Das, who has stated that after the letter was issued on 11. 3. 1997 the necessary corrections were carried out in the policy with regard to the period. The endorsement was also appended to the policy by which the period was shown from 13. 3. 1997 to 12. 3. 1998. ( 27. ) A Division Bench of Orissa High court in Britania Buildings and Iron Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1962 Orissa 117, referred to a passage from the judgment delivered by Lord Bramwell in the case of young and Co. v. Mayor and Corporation of royal Lamington Spa, (1883) 8 App Cas 517. The relevant para is as under: ". . . It is idle to say that there is no magic in water. It continually happens that carelessness and indifference on the one side and the greed of gain, on the other, cause a disregard of these safeguards and improvident engagements are entered into. Whether that has been so in this case, I have no notion but certainly the rate payers of Lamington may well be astonished at the amount claimed of them. The decision may be hard in this case on the plaintiffs who may not have known the law. They and others must be taught it which can only be done by its enforcement. . . " ( 28. The decision may be hard in this case on the plaintiffs who may not have known the law. They and others must be taught it which can only be done by its enforcement. . . " ( 28. ) ON the basis of the said passage of the judgment it is clear that there had been carelessness by the agent while putting the date in the cover note with regard to duration of the policy and the owners of the said truck were greedy by showing the date of accident to be in the duration of the policy that apart it does not stand to reason that premium for a subsequent date, a date that comes quite after would be paid. Further non-intimation to the insurer and thereby the endorsement to the original owner goes in significance, it may not be in the realm of fraud but indubitably was within the special knowledge of the insured, in addition the insurance company has performed its duty, a contractual one by sending the endorsement and keeping the acceptance letter on record. ( 29. ) IN view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to hold that in the present case there was no insurance of the vehicle on the date when the accident occurred, therefore, the insurance company in the absence of any insurance cannot be held responsible to indemnify the owner. The awards passed by the Tribunal in Claim Case nos. 179, 181 and 182 of 2002 stand modified and the liability is fastened on the owner. ( 30. ) ACCORDINGLY, appeals are allowed. No costs. Appeals allowed.