JUDGMENT M.Y.Eqbal and D.K.Sinha,JJ. 1. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.6.2002 passed by the First Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal Bermo at Tenughat whereby he was awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/-to the claimants and directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the aforesaid amount. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The claimants who are the heirs of the deceased, filed claim application alleging, inter alia, that the deceased, Ratan Prasad Soren, while going on his cycle, was dashed by a truck bearing registration No. BHO 1177 as a result of which the deceased sustained head injury and also injury on the other parts of his body. Because of the said injuries, the deceased died on the spot. 3. The respondent-owner of the vehicle appeared in the said claim case and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. He has stated that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company vide policy No. 170401/49386B which was valid from 1.12.95 to 30.11.96. 4. The appellant-Insurance Company, in its written statement, totally denied the insurance of the vehicle on the ground inter alia, that the cover note with regard to the vehicle in Question was issued on 1.12.95 at 5.00 P.M. i.e. after the alleged occurrence took place and, therefore, the Insurance Company has no liability at all. According to the appellant-Insurance Company, the date and time when the cover note was issued is 1.12.95 at 5 p.m. whereas according to the claimants, the accident took place at 4.35 p.m. on 1.12.1995. 5. The Tribunal framed as many as five issues which are as follows: (i) Is the suit, as framed, maintainable? (ii) Have the claimants got any cause of action for the suit? (iii) Are the claimants entitled to any Compensation from the OPs and if so to what extent? (iv) Has the deceased been a victim of death due to accident caused by the O.P. No. 1 while driving truck No. BHO 1177 rashly and negligently? (v) To what other relief or reliefs, if any, the claimants are entitled? 6. Although the Tribunal discussed the evidence of the witnesses but has not recorded a clear finding as to whether the accident took place before or after the issuance of cover note. (v) To what other relief or reliefs, if any, the claimants are entitled? 6. Although the Tribunal discussed the evidence of the witnesses but has not recorded a clear finding as to whether the accident took place before or after the issuance of cover note. The Tribunal, assuming that the accident took place on the same day when the vehicle was insured, held that the Insurance Company has liability for payment of compensation. 7. Although the respondent- owner of the vehicle appeared in this appeal but his counsel is not present today. The Tribunal, while discussing the evidence of PW2, has noticed his evidence with regard to time of accident. Although this witness has stated that the accident took place on 1.12.95 at 5 p.m. but he has further clarified that the accident took place at 4.30 to 5 p.m. Another witness, PW 3, Inderjeet Manjhi has stated in his evidence that the accident took place on 1.12.95 at about 4.35 p.m. The Tribunal also took notice of the fact that the vehicle was insured and cover note was issued on 1.12.95 at about 5 p.m. 8. The Insurance Company examined an officer of the Company Rana Arun Kumar Singh as DW2. He deposed that when the owner of the vehicle came for insurance of the vehicle, the vehicle was not produced by the owner. He has stated that the owner of the vehicle said that the vehicle is standing in front of the gate of Bokaro Steel City in a loaded condition and, therefore, it is not possible for him to produce the vehicle. This witness has stated that he issued the cover note on 1.12.1995 at 5 p.m. He further deposed that on inquiry he came to know that the accident had already taken place prior to issuance of the cover note. The Insurance Company also examined a surveyor, namely, Sheobrut Ghosh. He has stated that he made a detailed investigation and conducted inquiry and came to know that the accident took place at about 3.30 to 4.30 p.m. on 1.12.1995. 9. In spite of all these evidence the Tribunal, relying upon the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court ( 1998 ACJ 799 ), held that the policy of insurance became effective from the mid night when the policy was issued and, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot disown its liability. 9. In spite of all these evidence the Tribunal, relying upon the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court ( 1998 ACJ 799 ), held that the policy of insurance became effective from the mid night when the policy was issued and, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot disown its liability. In our view, the Tribunal has committed serious error of law in arriving at that conclusion. 10. Earlier in the case of New India Insurance Company v. Ramdayal the Supreme Court look the view that the insurance policy becomes effective from the mid-night of the day when the vehicle is insured. Their Lordships observed: 2. The insurer repudiated its liability by maintaining that the policy had been taken after the accident and, therefore, it had no liability to meet the award of compensation against the owner. The Tribunal accepted this stand and rejected the claim against the insurer. In appeal the High Court took the view relying upon certain decisions that the insurance policy obtained on the date of the accident became operative from the commencement of the date of insurance-i.e. from the previous mid night and since the accident took place on the date of the policy the insurer became liable. 4. There is evidence in this case that the vehicle was insured earlier up to August 31, 1984 and the same was available to be renewed but instead of obtaining renewal, a fresh insurance was taken from September 28, 1984 which is the date of the accident. We are inclined to agree with the view indicated in these decisions that when a policy is taken on a particular date, its effectiveness is from the commencement of the date and, therefore, the High Court, in our opinion, was right in holding that the insurer was liable in terms of the Act to meet the liability of the owner (sic) the award. 11. In a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi (Smt) and Ors. their lordships held that in absence of any specific time mentioned in that behalf in the insurance policy, the same would be operative from the mid night of the day. 11. In a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi (Smt) and Ors. their lordships held that in absence of any specific time mentioned in that behalf in the insurance policy, the same would be operative from the mid night of the day. Their Lordships This court in New Indian Assurance Company Ltd. v. Ram Dayal, had held that in the absence of any specific time mentioned in that behalf the contract would be operative from the midnight of the day by operation of provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897. But in view of thee special contract mentioned in the insurance policy namely, it would be operative from 4.00 p.m. on 25.10.83 and the accident had occurred earlier thereto, the insurance coverage would not enable the claimant to seek recovery of the amount from the appellant-Company. 12. Again in a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi and Ors. their lordships distinguished the earlier decision rendered in Ramdayals case (supra). In that case their lordships observed: The motor accident occurred on 10.12.91 at 2.20 p.m. It was only thereafter the same day at 2.55 p.m. that the insurance policy and the cover note were obtained by the insured, owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. There is express mention in the cover note that the effective date and time of commencement of the insurance for the purpose of the Act was 10.12.91 at 2.55 p.m. The applicability of the decision in Ram Dayal case has to be considered on these facts. In our opinion the decision in Ram Dayals case is distinguishable and has no application to the facts of this case. The facts of that decision show that the time of issuance of the policy was not mentioned therein and the question, therefore, was of presumption when the date alone was mentioned and not the time at which the insurance was to become effective on that date. In such a situation, it was held in Ram Dayal 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 I which had place on the date of the policy, this insurer became liable. In such a situation, it was held in Ram Dayal 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 I which had place on the date of the policy, this 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. in which it was expressly mentioned that the effective date and time of commencement of this insurance for the purpose of the Act was 10.12.97 at 2.55 p.m. The reliance on Ram Dayal case by the Tribunal and the High Court, was, therefore, misplaced. We find that in a similar situation, the same view which we have taken, was also the view in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi wherein Ram Dayal case was distinguished on the same basis. 13. However the Supreme Court later clarified the earlier view taken in Ramdayals case (supra) in a subsequent decision in the case of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhagwati Devi and Ors. and observed that the insurance policy would not be operative from the previous midnight rather, it shall be operative from the time it is issued. Their lordships observed: The facts giving rise to the appeal are minimal. The appellant-insurance company sold a policy at about 4 p.m. on 17.2.89. Undeniably, it had been bought at a time when an accident pertaining to the vehicle insured had already taken place at about 9 a.m. the same day. The fatal accident occurring thereby gave rise to a claim for damages before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The same was allowed on the strength of the decision of this Court aforementioned, correctness of which has been challenged. The said decision proceeded on the legal fiction that when a policy is taken on a particular date, its effectiveness would start from the commencement of that date which is from the previous midnight. The accident taking place at any time during the day would be covered by the policy. Later a three member Bench of his court in National Insurance Co. The accident taking place at any time during the day would be covered by the policy. Later a three member Bench of his court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi has taken the view that when there is a special contract mentioning in the policy the time when it was bought, it would be operative from that time and not fictionally from the previous midnight. In the said case, the policy had been bought at about 4 p.m. on the day of the accident and, thus, was not allowed to be operative from midnight; the accident having occurred around 11 a.m. on that date. The principle deduced is thus clear that should there be no contract to the contrary, an insurance policy becomes operative from the previous midnight when bought during the day following. However, in case there is mention of a specific time for its purchase then a special contract to the contrary comes into being and the policy would be effective from the mentioned time. The law on this aspect has been put to rest by this Court. There is, thus, nothing further for us to deliberate upon. 14. In the instant case, as noticed above, the time of issuance of policy/cover note is mentioned as 1.12.95 at 5 p.m. The evidence adduced by the claimants witnesses sufficiently prove that the accident took place prior to 5 p.m. on 1.12.95. In that view of the mater we have no hesitation in holding that the policy of insurance was procured by the owner of the vehicle after the accident took place. In such a situation the Insurance Company cannot be held to be liable for payment of compensation. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal so far fixation of liability of the appellant- Insurance Company is concerned, is set aside. It is directed that the entire compensation amount shall be paid by the respondent-owner of the vehicle. Needless to say that if any interim compensation has been paid by the Insurance Company, then it shall have the right to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.