JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. : A common Award passed on 4th June, 1997 by the 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack in Misc.Case Nos.467, 468, 469, 470 and 471 of 1990 is assailed in the afore¬said three Miscellaneous Appeals and the two Writ applications by the Oriental Insurance Company. 2. The aforesaid five Misc.Cases claiming compensation had been filed by five different claimants with the averments that on 17.1.1990 they were travelling in a bus bearing registration number OSU 3419 as passengers when the said bus at about 8.30 a.m. capsized due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. As a consequence thereof all the claimants sustained grievous in¬juries all over their body including fracture injuries. After receiving notice the owner of the aforesaid bus did not contest the claim cases and was set ex parte. The Oriental Insurance Company contested the case and filed its written state¬ments. 3. Before the Tribunal the claimants got themselves examined as witnesses on their behalf and exhibited several docu¬ments, while the Insurance Company did not get any witness exam¬ined but only exhibited one document which was marked as Ext.A. After discussing the materials in extenso, the Tribunal awarded the following compensation amounts in favour of the respective claimants as mentioned hereinafter:- (1) Gajendra Das (M.C. No.467/90) (Respondent No.1 in M.A. No.622/79) ..... Rs. 50,000.00 (2) Pravin Nayak (M.C. No.468/90) (O.P. No.1 in OJC No.14045/97 ..... Rs. 5,000.00 (3) Niharika Mohapatra (M.C. No.469/90) (Respondent No.1 in M.A. No.620/97) ..... Rs. 80,000.00 (4) Madhabananda Mohapatra (M.C. No.470/90) (O.P. No.1 in OJC No.14044/97) ..... Rs. 2,000.00 (5) Kanakapriya Mohapatra (M.C. No.471/90) (Respondent No.1 in M.A. No.621/97) ..... Rs. 30,000.00 4. The Insurance Company assails the aforesaid Award mainly on the ground that the insurance policy of the offending bus was issued at 2.45 p.m. while it met with the accident at 8.30 a.m. Thus the policy having been issued after the accident, it is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. The contention of the Insurance Company is resisted by the claimants on the ground that since the Insurance Company has not satisfied the condition precedent under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appeals are not maintainable and so also the two Writ applications. 5. The contention of the Insurance Company is resisted by the claimants on the ground that since the Insurance Company has not satisfied the condition precedent under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appeals are not maintainable and so also the two Writ applications. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2003 TAC 425 (SC) (National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chinto Devi and others) it is submitted that it is immaterial as to the time when the policy was issued. If fact remains that a policy had been issued, the same became effective from the mid-night of the preceding day, irrespective of the time when it was issued. According to Mr. T.C. Mohanty, learned coun¬sel appearing for respective respondent No.1/opposite party No.1-claimants, admittedly the insurance policy had been issued on 17.1.1990 at 9.30 a.m. The amount of premium must have been paid much before that time and verification of the vehicle must have been done even before that. Thus the policy is to be presumed to have come into force with effect from mid-night of 16.1.1990 and therefore the Tribunal has rightly passed the Award. 6. Mr. A. K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner-Insurance Company, on the other hand, sub¬mitted that an insurance policy becomes effective only from the date and time indicated in the policy and it is not correct to say that effectiveness of the policy would be from commencement of the date irrespective of the time when it was issued. 7. This Court heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the entire materials available on record. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with liability and/or effectiveness of an insurance policy. In the case of New India Insurance Ltd. v. Ramdayal and others, (1990) 2 SCC 680 the Supreme Court has held that a policy would cover the liability of the insurer from the previous mid-night preceding the same day. Thus according to the ratio of the said decision even where an accident in point of time is earlier than the time when the policy was issued, the Insurance Company would be liable. 8. But then it appears that subsequently a change was brought into the above principle of the Supreme Court in subse¬quent decisions. Thus according to the ratio of the said decision even where an accident in point of time is earlier than the time when the policy was issued, the Insurance Company would be liable. 8. But then it appears that subsequently a change was brought into the above principle of the Supreme Court in subse¬quent decisions. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jiju Bhai Nathuji Dabhi and others, 1997(1) SCC 66 , the Su¬preme Court held that in view of the special contract mentioned in the policy, i.e. the time of its issue,it would be operative from that time and not from the previous mid-night. Similar ratio was also laid down in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Bhagwati Devi and others, (1998) 6 SCC 534 and also in the case of National Insurance Company v. Mrs. Chinto Devi and others, 2000 (3) TAC 425 (SC). 9. A cumulative reading of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions leads to the conclusion that if a specific time is mentioned in the insurance policy, the policy becomes effective from the said time and not earlier. In the instant case, admittedly the owner of the vehicle did not contest the cases and was set ex parte. The Insurance Company also did not get any witness examined on its behalf though it produced the insurance policy in question which was marked as Ext.A. It is not known as to when the premium had been deposited or when the Insurance Company physically verified the vehicle before issuing the insurance cover-note and/or whether there was continuity of the insurance coverage and when the last policy (if any) came to an end. In absence of the aforesaid facts which are very perti¬nent it would not be just and prudent to saddle any compensation on the Insurance Company, inasmuch as it can reimburse the com¬pensation amount only by virtue of a valid insurance policy and not otherwise. 10. On the aforesaid analysis this Court is of the opinion that the impugned Award fixing liability on the Insurance Company cannot be sustained. 10. On the aforesaid analysis this Court is of the opinion that the impugned Award fixing liability on the Insurance Company cannot be sustained. But then in the facts and circumstances of the case, after analyzing the evidence, both oral and documen¬tary, this Court finds that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus and all the claimants are entitled to receive compensation awarded in their favour by the Tribunal. Thus while upholding the finding of the Tribunal with regard to compensation, this Court remits the matter back to the Tribunal who shall re-examine the materials and record its finding with regard to the time from which the insurance policy became effective. It is needless to say that before proceeding the Tribunal shall issue notice to all the parties. To avoid unnecessary harassment to the poor claimants this Court directs that the Insurance Company shall deposit 50% of the amount awarded in favour of the claimants before the Tribunal which shall be kept infixed Deposit in any Nationalised Bank for a period of one year. Disbursement of the said amounts shall depend upon the final decision to be taken by the Tribunal with regard to the inter se liability. All the Miscellaneous Appeals and the OJCs are accordingly disposed of. Misc. Appeals and OJCs disposed of.