Judgment :- This Civil Revision petition is directed against the award dated 12.04.2006 and made in M.C.O.P. No. 248 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principle Sub Court, Dindigul and praying to set aside the same. .2. The case of the claimant before the tribunal is as follows: .On 22.01.2000 at about 10.30 a.m, the petitioner/claimant along with his son was traveling in his TVS 50 bearing Regn.No.TN-57-A-9258 in the extreme left side from south to north direction. At that time, the driver of the first respondent drove the tractor bearing Regn.No.TN-57b-5465 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioners TVS.50 and caused the accident, in which, the petitioner sustained injuries. Hence, the petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the tractor bearing Reg.No.TN-57b-5465 belonged to the second respondent. The vehicle was driven carefully by the second respondents driver. But the TVS.50 was driven by the first respondent rashly and negligently and met with the accident. The second respondent insured the tractor properly. On 210. 2000, in order to renew the insurance policy, he gave the amount to the revision petitioners agent. Since the policy amount was not paid on 22.01.2000, the revision petitioner was liable to pay the amount. 4. A counter affidavit was filed in the M.C.O.P by the revision petitioner herein/second respondent viz. the New India Assurance Company Limited, wherein it is stated that this petition is not maintainable and they also disputed the age, work, monthly income, injuries, disability, period of treatment in Government and private Hospital and expenses incurred and the accident was not due to the mistake of driver of the tractor bearing Reg.No.TN-57-B-5465 and at the time of accident, he drove the tractor slowly following all traffic rules. The claim of the compensation is excessive. The TVS-50 owner and the insurer are not impleaded as parties. The insured has taken a policy No.31-720900-13934 for a period from 05.01.96 to 04.097. Subsequently, a fresh insurance policy was taken in policy No.47/720900/09589 from 24.01.2000 to 23.01.2001. The accident occurred on 22.01.2000. There was no insurance policy on that date. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Before the trial Court, on the side of the claimant, P.W. 1 was examined and Exs.P. 1 and- P.2 were marked. On the side of the respondents, R.Ws. The accident occurred on 22.01.2000. There was no insurance policy on that date. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Before the trial Court, on the side of the claimant, P.W. 1 was examined and Exs.P. 1 and- P.2 were marked. On the side of the respondents, R.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R. 1 and R.2 were marked. .6. On consideration of evidence, the learned principle Judge/motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dindigul allowed the petition directing the second respondent/revision petitioner herein to pay the compensation of Rs.7,000/- to the injured claimant. 7. Challenging the judgment of the learned principal Judge/ Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dindigul, this revision petitioner has been filed. .8. Point for determination: ."Whether the revision petitioner is liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the injured?" 9. The second respondent is the owner of the tractor bearing Reg.No.TN-57-B-5465 and the first respondent is the claimant in this petition. The second respondent insured the vehicle with the petitioner and the policy expired on 22.01.2000 and he had taken another policy on 24.01.2000. The accident occurred on 22.01.2000. Admittedly, on the date of accident, there was no policy in favour of the owner of the tractor. 10. It is the submission of the revision petitioners counsel that there was no policy on the date of accident. So, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. He relied on the following decisions of the Honourable supreme Court, viz.; i) C.M.A.No.3122 of 2000 (New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Rakesh Talwar) ii) C.M.A.No.1350 of 2001 (National Insurance Company Limited Vs seema Malhotra and others) In C.M.A.No.3122 of 2000 (New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Rakesh Talwar), the Honourable supreme Court has observed that the accident took place on 17th October, 1996 at 1.00 p.m, whereas the insurance policy issued only at 2.30 p.m, on the same day. So, the Insurance Company cannot be mulcted with the liability. 11. The principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above decision is applicable to the present case. Though the second respondent contended that he paid the amount to the agent of the Insurance Company, the alleged agent also was not examined. Absolutely, there is no evidence on record to show that the premium was paid to the Insurance company. So, there was no policy on the date of accident. Though the second respondent contended that he paid the amount to the agent of the Insurance Company, the alleged agent also was not examined. Absolutely, there is no evidence on record to show that the premium was paid to the Insurance company. So, there was no policy on the date of accident. Hence, the insurance company cannot be held responsible for the claim of the first respondent. 12. In the result, the judgment passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principle sub Court, Dindigul in M. C.O. P. No. 248 of 2002 on 12.04.2006 is not correct accordingly, it is set aside. So far as the revision petitioner is concerned, the civil revision petition is allowed. The second respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation to the first respondent. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2006 is closed. No costs.