JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company against the common judgment and award dated 23.3.1996 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bali (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 99,000/- in Claim Case No. 53/1991 (CMA No. 385/1996) filed by Smt. Dhanki and Ors. and Rs. 90,000/- in Claim Case No. 55/1991 (CMA No. 386/1996) filed by Ragha Ram plus interest @ 12% per annum in both the claim cases in favour of claimants and against the appellant-Insurance Company. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 29.5.1991 at about 7 P. M. an accident took place in front of Nadol Hospital on Rani-Nadol Roas wherein it was alleged that bus bearing No. RJT-3781 which was being driven by Man Singh (non-claimant No. 1) rashly and negligent and at a high speed, dashed with Scooter No. BLC-2987. The said scooter was being driven by Ashok Kumar and Raga Ram was the sitting behind him and as a result of said accident, Ashok Kumar died on the spot whereas Ragha received grievous as well as simple injuries. A report of the accident was lodged at P.S. Rani vide F.I.R. No. 42/1991, in which the police after usual investigation, filed challan against Man Singh (bus driver) for offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A I. P. C. 3. As per the claim petition deceased-Ashok Kumar at the time of accident was aged 22 years and was working in a watch shop at Mumbai. He was being paid salary of Rs. 700/- per month plus other expenses of his food, clothing and accommodation etc., was also being born by the shop-owner. It was further stated that the claimant-mother of the deceased was dependent on his income and she was benefited by his income. Due to death in accident, she has been deprived of the said income and also suffered mental agony and shock. She claimed compensation for the same. Non-claimant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are stated to be the driver, owner and insurer respectively of the said bus. The claimant-Smt. Dhanki-Mother of deceased claimed a total compensation of Rs. 1,75,000/- compensation on various heads for the untimely death of her only son-Ashok Kumar in road accident. She filed claim petition. Her claim petition was registered as MACT Case No. 53/1991. 1, 2 and 3 are stated to be the driver, owner and insurer respectively of the said bus. The claimant-Smt. Dhanki-Mother of deceased claimed a total compensation of Rs. 1,75,000/- compensation on various heads for the untimely death of her only son-Ashok Kumar in road accident. She filed claim petition. Her claim petition was registered as MACT Case No. 53/1991. In the same accident, as Ragha sustained fracture on his right leg, as a result of which, he became permanently disabled. It was stated that the injured Ragha was 30 years old and at the time of accident he was earning Rs. 2,500/- per month by doing labour but due to the injuries sustained by him, he could not work as usual and, thus, has suffered loss of income. He remained under long treatment for nearly 13 months and during that period he could not work for gain and thus he suffered loss of income as well as mental shock and agony. Thus, the injured-Ragaram claimed a total compensation of Rs. 88,200/- on heads. He filed a claim petition, which was registered as MACT No. 55/1991. 4. The non-claimants Nos. 1 and 2 driver and owner of the aid bus filed similar reply, wherein they denied the allegations made in the claim petitions and further stated that deceased-Ashok Kumar himself was negligent in driving his scooter, due to that the accident occurred, as such, it was urged that they cannot be held responsible for payment of any sort of compensation. Further it was stated that the registered owner and the insurer of scooter have not been made party to the claim petitions, as such, the claim petitions were liable to be rejected on count of non-joinder of necessary parties. In reply, it was admitted that the said bus was insured at the time of accident with New India Assurance Company. It was also submitted that the amounts claimed as compensation was on the higher side. Thus, it was prayed that the claim petitions may be dismissed. 5. The non-claimant No. 3 insurer of the bus filed separate similar replies to both the claim petitions denying all the allegations made therein. It was stated that the said bus was not insured at that time, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be made responsible for the payment of compensation. 5. The non-claimant No. 3 insurer of the bus filed separate similar replies to both the claim petitions denying all the allegations made therein. It was stated that the said bus was not insured at that time, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be made responsible for the payment of compensation. In reply, it was also alleged that the driver of the bus was not having any valid and effective driving licence. Lastly, it was prayed that the claim petitions be dismissed. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties relevant issues were framed with regard to the factum of accident and the responsibility of paying the compensation. 7. It is revealed from the record that as both the claim petitions were related to single accident, therefore, both the claim petitions were proceeded and heard together. During trial, from the claimant's side AW-1 Ragha Ram (injured) and AW-2 Smt. Dhamki (mother of deceased Ashok Kumar) were examined and certain documents were produced and got exhibited. From the side of non- claimants. NAW-1 Meetha Lal (bus owner) and NAW-2 Suresh Chan Lahoti (Branch Manager of the Insurance Company) appeared and gave evidence. 8. After hearing both the parties the learned Tribunal on the basis of material available on record vide judgment and award dated 23.3.1996 held that the accident occurred due to sole rash and negligent driving of offending bus by its driver-Man Singh thereby resulting in causing of death of Ashok Kumar and causing injuries to injured-Ragararn. The Tribunal also over-ruled the other defences taken by the respondents and after considering the age and income of deceased and the injured, assessed the compensation and awarded compensation of Rs. 99,000/- in Claim Case No. 53/1991 and Rs. 90,000/- in Claim Case No. 55/1991 plus interest, as stated above. It was further held that the responsibility of paying the compensation shall be jointly and severally of the non-claimants Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 23.3.1996, the instant appeals have been preferred by the insurer of bus-appellants-New India Assurance Co. Limited before this Court. As both the appeals are related to single judgment and are based on common question of law and facts, therefore, they are being heard together. Notices of the appeals were issued and the record was called and the arguments were heard. 10. Limited before this Court. As both the appeals are related to single judgment and are based on common question of law and facts, therefore, they are being heard together. Notices of the appeals were issued and the record was called and the arguments were heard. 10. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the insurer- appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal has not properly considered and appreciated the contentions raised before them and has passed an erroneous judgment holding the responsibility of the Insurance Company for paying the compensation. Learned counsel further contended that admittedly in this case the accident took place on 29.5.1991 and the risk was covered w. e. f. 30.5.1991, thus, on the day of accident the offending bus was not insured with the appellant-Company, therefore, the appellants cannot be held responsible for the payment of compensation. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that before the learned Tribunal on their behalf to support the contention NAW-2 Suresh Chand Lahoti the responsible person of the Insurance Company was produced and he has specifically stated that as per the cover-note and the policy, the risk was covered from 30.5.1991 but the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated its evidence. It was also contended that NAW-1 Meetha Lal-owner of the bus has himself appeared but he has not been able to satisfactorily explain that the risk of the offending vehicle was covered on 29.5.1991. On the basis of these contentions it was urged that considering the cover-note, the Insurance Company cannot be held responsible to pay compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of its contention placed reliance on the judgment given in B.N. Jeevan Prakash v. Shabeer Ahamad Shariff, 2007 ACJ 1709 . In that case, the vehicle met with an accident at 9.00 A.M. on 1.12.1998. The owner has paid the premium on 1.12.1998 but the policy was commencing from midnight of 2.12.1998. It was held that the Insurance Company cannot be held responsible for paying the compensation. He also cited judgment given in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prem Chand Gupta and Ors., III (2005) ACC 697. In that case the cover-note was not indicating to cover the risk before 10.12.1995. The Insurance Company would be liable for risk only from 10.12.1995 onwards. The accident occurred on 9.12.1995 at 4.15 P. M. The vehicle not covered even under cover-note. Ltd. v. Prem Chand Gupta and Ors., III (2005) ACC 697. In that case the cover-note was not indicating to cover the risk before 10.12.1995. The Insurance Company would be liable for risk only from 10.12.1995 onwards. The accident occurred on 9.12.1995 at 4.15 P. M. The vehicle not covered even under cover-note. In that case the Insurance Company was not held responsible. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hamza and Anr., 2005(3) TAC 631 (Kant.). In that case, the owner of the vehicle paid premium and obtained policy on 4.8.1997, which was effective from 5.8.1997 to 4.8.1998. The vehicle met with an accident on 4.8.1997. In that case also the insurer was not held liable. He also cited judgment given in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa and Ors., 2007 ACJ 2508 . In that case, the cover-note was issued on 18.12.2003 at 9 P.M. and as per the specific terms in the cover not the same was effective from 19.12.2003 to 19.12.2004. In that case the accident occurred in between 4 and 5 P.M. on 18.12.2003. It was held that the insurer was not responsible. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that on the basis of the terms and conditions of the insurance contract, the risk was covered on 30.5.1991 and the learned Tribunal should have determined the responsibility accordingly. Further it was contended that the income of the deceased as.well as of the injured have not been established, despite that, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation on the higher side, that is not sustainable. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, it was urged that both the appeals should be allowed and the appellant be exonerated from the responsibility of paying the compensation to the claimants. Further a prayer was made that the amount paid by the insurer be directed to be recoverable from the owner of the vehicle and the appeals may be allowed. 12. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-claimants as well as the owner of the bus refuted the contentions and supported the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel for the claimant- respondents submitted that in this case the learned Tribunal has granted meager amount towards compensation, though, in both the cases they have not filed an any appeal for enhancement of compensation but the contentions placed by the appellants' side are not sustainable. The learned counsel for the claimant- respondents submitted that in this case the learned Tribunal has granted meager amount towards compensation, though, in both the cases they have not filed an any appeal for enhancement of compensation but the contentions placed by the appellants' side are not sustainable. In this respect it was contended that the learned Tribunal while determining the compensation has thoroughly considered the material placed by the claimant's side and there was no rebuttal from the other side with regard to the income, therefore, the contention of the appellant is totally baseless. He also submitted that the contentions raised with regard to the factum of insurance are also not sustainable. The learned counsel for the owner-respondent submitted that it was well established before the learned Tribunal that the vehicle was insured on 29.5.1991 before the accident took place. It was contended that from the record it is admitted that the accident occurred at 7.00 P.M. and Rs. 6,180/- was paid as premium to the Authorised Agent of the insurer at 4.00 P.M. on 29.5.1991. It was also contended that at that time the proposal form was also got filed in and cover note was issued on the very same day covering the risk from 29.5.1991 to 28.5.1992. It was contended that the Agent procured the cover-note issued earlier on the pretext that some particulars were wrongly filled and during that process he made manipulation in the cover-note and time and dated has been changed without any consent. It was contended that the Agent was fully authorised to take premium and to issue cover-note. There is no allegation from the Insurance Company that with any ulterior motive the bus was got insured after the accident occurred. In this respect learned counsel drew my attention towards the statement of NAW-1 Meetha Lal and further submitted that the witness appeared on behalf of the Insurance Company also admitted that the proposal was accepted by the Agent on 29th. It was urged that nothing remains to do other formalities, therefore, at the time of accident the bus was insured and the learned Tribunal after considering minutely these facts rightly held the Insurance Company liable for the payment of compensation. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant do not apply to the facts of the present case, thus, they are not helping their contentions. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant do not apply to the facts of the present case, thus, they are not helping their contentions. Learned counsel for the respondent in support of his contention also placed number of citations reported in : 1 - 1988 ACJ 123; 2 - New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rula and Ors., 2000 ACJ 630 (SC) ; 3 - Kishore Singh and Anr. v. Bharat Singh and Ors., 1987(2) WLN (Raj.) 721 ; 4 - 1995 ACJ 976, 5 - 2004 ACJ 1209 and 6 - 2004 ACJ 1554 . 13. Learned counsel for the appellant also drew my attention towards Section 64B of the Insurance Act and further submitted that as the contract of the Insurance of taking the risk came into existence before the accident occurred and the cover-note was validly issued by the insurer, therefore, the Insurance Company was responsible for the payment of compensation and the learned Tribunal has rightly held responsible, that should be maintained. It was prayed that the appeals filed by the Insurance Company are liable to be dismissed and they may be dismissed. 14. I have considered the rival contentions and have perused the judgment and award so also the findings and conclusions drawn by the learned Tribunal. The main questions which remain for consideration in these appeals is whether the Insurance Company was wrongly held responsible for the payment of compensation? and whether the awarded compensation is on the higher side? 15. So far as the finding with regard to the factum of accident is concerned, I have seen the finding given by the learned Tribunal, that is, based on the evidence as well as the material available on record. AW-1 Ragha Ram who himself received injuries injured in the accident, has narrated the full facts of the accident. It is also pertinent to note that on the report of the said accident, the police after thorough investigation has filed challan against the driver of the offending bus. Thus, the finding of the learned Tribunal to this extent is maintained. 16. Keeping in view the contentions raised by the Insurance Company with regard to their responsibility, I have perused the statement of NAW-1 Meetha Lal (owner of the bus). Thus, the finding of the learned Tribunal to this extent is maintained. 16. Keeping in view the contentions raised by the Insurance Company with regard to their responsibility, I have perused the statement of NAW-1 Meetha Lal (owner of the bus). He has specifically stated that on 29.5.1991 the accident occurred at 7.00 P.M. He has stated that he has got his vehicle insured on that day at 4.00 P.M. and has paid the premium at that time and cover-note taking the risk of vehicle (Ex. A-1) was given at that time. The relevant portion of his statement is quoted as under:- " tks nq?kZVuk 'kke dks lkr cts gqbZ FkhA esjh xkM+h nq?kZVuk ds le; chfer dh gqbZ FkhA tks chek eSaus U;w bf.M;k ba';ksjsal dEiuh ls djok;k Fkk tks fnukad 29-5-1991 dks 'kke dks 4-00 cts djok;k Fkk tks chek ikyh ls chek ,tsUV ls djok;k FkkA ftldk fizfe;e eSaus 6180@& :i;s tek djk;s Fks tks mlh fnu ,tsUV ds ikl esa tek djok;s FksA chek ,tsUV us eq>s dojuksV cukdj fn;k Fkk tks doj uksV fnukad 29-5-1991 dks 'kke dks pkj cts tkjh fd;k FkkA " 17. He has further stated in his statement that the cover-note (Ex.A-1) was taken back by the Agent on the pretext that some particulars were to be added. It is alleged that during that time, the time and date has been changed, that is reflected from Ex.A-1. The perusal of Ex.A-1 cover-note reveals that the date 29.5.1991 has been manipulated as 30.5.1991 and time of 4.00 P.M. has been changed to 5.00 P.M. NAW-2 Suresh Chand Lahoti is the. concerned Branch Manger of the Insurance Company. He had admitted in his statement that cover- note (Ex.1) was issued by the Agent on 29.5.1991 at 5.00 P.M. and at the time of issuing he has mentioned the date of covering the risk from 29.5.1991 to 28.5.1992. He further stated that the cover-note was issued after the expiry of office hours, therefore, the cover-note was modified covering the risk from 30.5.1991 to 29.5.1992 and the Insurance Policy (Ex.NA-2) was issued accordingly. He has also admitted in cross-examination that it is correct that on 29.5.1991 the policy holder made a proposal and that was accepted by the Agent. He further stated that the cover-note was issued after the expiry of office hours, therefore, the cover-note was modified covering the risk from 30.5.1991 to 29.5.1992 and the Insurance Policy (Ex.NA-2) was issued accordingly. He has also admitted in cross-examination that it is correct that on 29.5.1991 the policy holder made a proposal and that was accepted by the Agent. For ready reference the portion of his statement is quoted as under:- " ;g lgh gS fd fnukad 29-5-1991 dks chek /kkjd }kjk chek djus dk izLrko izkIr gqvk Fkk vkSj mlh fnu chek fosdkl vf/kdkjh }kjk djuk Lohdkj gqvk FkkA " 18. Thus, on the basis of the statement of the relevant witnesses, it is established that bus was got insured before the accident occurred, that is 29.5.1991. It is well settled law that Agent of the Insurance Company was competent to cover the risk of the vehicle. In this case he has taken the money and has accepted the proposal as admitted by the witness NAW-2 Meetha Lal, now nothing remains to do anything. It is also relevant that from the perusal of the cover-note (Exh.1), it seems that previously it was issued covering the risk from 29.5.1991 to 28.5.1992 and the time of covering the risk seems to be 4.00 P.M., that has been later on manipulated by the Agent, modifying the date 30.5.1991 to 29.5.1991 and instead of 4.00 P.M. it has been corrected as 5.00 P.M. The learned Tribunal after considering all these aspects held that the bus was insured at the time of accident and on that basis, the appellant-Insurance Company was held responsible for the payment of compensation. 19. I have perused the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellants but in all the judgments the factual aspect, as stated above, was totally different, therefore, they are not applicable to the present case. On the contrary the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent-owner 1 - New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rula and Ors. (supra) and 2 - Kishore Singh and Anr. v. Bharat Singh and Ors. (supra), it has been held that where the Insurance Company has accepted the proposal and premium, the Insurance Company is not absolved from its liability. In the judgment given in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rula and Ors. (supra) and 2 - Kishore Singh and Anr. v. Bharat Singh and Ors. (supra), it has been held that where the Insurance Company has accepted the proposal and premium, the Insurance Company is not absolved from its liability. In the judgment given in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rula and Ors., 2000 ACJ 630 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the policy was issued on 18.11.1991 and the cheque given towards the premium was dishonoured on 16.11.1991. The vehicle met with an accident in the mid-night of 8.11.1991 resulting in death of three persons, the Hon'ble Apex Court considering the facts held that the Insurance Company liable for paying the compensation. Like in the present case, admittedly the cover-note covering the risk was issued on 29.5.1991 and the premium was received before the vehicle met with the accident, therefore, the Insurance Company was under an obligation to pay compensation. It is pertinent to note that the Agent who covered the risk, received cash and issued the cover-note, who was fully competent to cover the risk by accepting the premium. He would have been the best witness from the appellant's side but he has deliberately been withheld by the Insurance Company, that goes against their stand. I have also considered the contention raised by the Insurance Company with regard to the quantum of compensation. I have considered the quantum of compensation determined by the learned Tribunal. After considering the income and age of the deceased as well as of the injured, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded just and reasonable compensation, those are not on the excessive side. 20. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the contentions raised by the appellants' are not sustainable. The appeals filed by the Insurance? Company are liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company are hereby dismissed. 20. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the contentions raised by the appellants' are not sustainable. The appeals filed by the Insurance? Company are liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company are hereby dismissed. During the course of arguments, it was contended by the owner of the bus that they have deposited some amount against the impugned award for paying it to the claimants, as such, directions be issued that the amount be refunded to the owner by the Insurance Company, as it is held that the responsibility of full payment of compensation would be of the Insurance Company, therefore, the amount so deposited by them be directed to be paid to the owner by the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company shall be entitled to adjust the after verification. If the said amount has been paid, the owner will be entitled to recover the same from the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company is further directed to pay or deposit the due amount within a period of 30 days before the Tribunal for being paid to the claimants, failing which, the claimants will be free to start recovery proceedings as per law. The judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal in both the claim cases are confirmed. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.Appeals dismissed. *******