JUDGMENT : N.K. Mody, J. (1) Being aggrieved by the award dated 13. 5. 2002 passed by the additional member, m. A. C. T. , sonkutch in claim case no. 23 of 2000 whereby the claim case filed by one rajesh, respondent no. 1 herein was allowed and a sum of rs. 2,55,880 was awarded for which the respondent nos. 2 and 3 along with the appellant were held liable for payment of compensation jointly and severally, the present appeal has been filed. (2) Short facts of the case are that one rajesh who is respondent no. 1 herein filed a claim petition before the learned tribunal alleging that on 2. 11. 1999 at about 1. 30 p. M. Respondent no. 1 met with an accident with a maruti car bearing engine no. 1945397, chassis no. 361194 which was driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 2, owned by respondent no. 3 and insured with appellant insurance company. It was alleged that because of rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 2, respondent no. 1 sustained injuries, hence the claim case be allowed and compensation be awarded from respondent nos. 2 and 3 along with appellant. The claim case was contested by the appellant and also by the respondent no. 3. The stand of respondent no. 3 was that respondent no. 2 was not rash and negligent in driving and was not cause of accident. It was alleged that even if it is presumed that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 2, then too, since the offending vehicle was insured with appellant, therefore, the amount of compensation be recovered from the appellant. The stand of the appellant was that the accident took place at about 1. 30 p. M. While offending vehicle was got insured at 4. 50 p. M. , i. E. , after the accident. It was alleged that since the policy was obtained after the accident, therefore, appellant insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, the tribunal allowed the claim case and awarded a sum of rs. 2,55,880 holding that offending vehicle was insured at the time of accident with the appellant and appellant is liable for the payment of compensation along with respondent nos. 2 and 3 to respondent no. 1. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, the tribunal allowed the claim case and awarded a sum of rs. 2,55,880 holding that offending vehicle was insured at the time of accident with the appellant and appellant is liable for the payment of compensation along with respondent nos. 2 and 3 to respondent no. 1. (3) The learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submits that learned tribunal committed error in holding the appellant liable for payment of compensation. It is submitted that policy is on record which is marked as exh. D3 which bears the timings, according to which policy was issued at 16. 50 hours (4. 50 p. M.) while accident took place at 1. 30 p. M. It is submitted that appellant has examined p. P. Pingle, branch manager of appellant who has proved that the policy was issued at 4. 50 p. M. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of this court in the matter of haji mohd. V. Ravindra, 2009 acj 31 (mp) , wherein after taking into consideration all the decisions of apex court and also this court, it was held that the policy comes in play with effect from the timings mentioned in policy. Further reliance is placed on a decision of division bench of this court in the matter of national insurance co. Ltd. V. Tarachand, m. A. No. 1149 of 2004; decided on 8. 1. 2008, wherein the accident took place at 1. 30 p. M. While the cover note was issued at 6. 45 p. M. On the same date. In this case, it was held that since the insurance policy was obtained after the accident, therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. (4) Mr. G. K. Neema, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 submits that the respondent no. 3, fairdeal marwah is in mobile business and used to send cars from indore to bhopal for which transit insurance policies are being taken. It is submitted that respondent no. 3 has proved by exh. D1 which is a order issued by p. K. Tandon, administrative officer of respondent no. 3 to the accountant to pay a sum of rs. 643 to one shyamlal, agent of the appellant insurance company for obtaining transit insurance of vehicle chassis no. 361194. It is submitted that thereafter the payment was made by accountant of the respondent no. D1 which is a order issued by p. K. Tandon, administrative officer of respondent no. 3 to the accountant to pay a sum of rs. 643 to one shyamlal, agent of the appellant insurance company for obtaining transit insurance of vehicle chassis no. 361194. It is submitted that thereafter the payment was made by accountant of the respondent no. 3 to shyamlal, for which computerised voucher was issued on 11. 2. 2003 and, thereafter, policy was issued. It is submitted that in the policy, exh. D3, the timing is mentioned in a column which is meant for policy period and not for mentioning the timings. It is submitted that since the amount was paid by respondent no. 3 prior to the accident, therefore, learned tribunal has rightly held the appellant liable for payment of compensation. Apart from this, it is submitted that in cross - examination of witnesses examined by the appellant it has come in evidence that policies are being issued after physical verification of vehicle for which the insurance is made. It is submitted that it is not in dispute that accident took place between indore and bhopal. It is submitted that in the policy, exh. D3, the chassis number and engine number of the offending vehicle was mentioned. It is submitted that the important witness was shyamlal who was agent of the appellant was not examined. Reliance was placed on a decision of this court in the matter of national insurance co. Ltd. V. Jagarnath, 2002 acj 1748 (mp) , wherein division bench of this court has observed that in a case where premium has been paid before the accident, the issuance of policy was to follow as a matter of course; non - issuance of policy would not mean that there is no privity of contract between the parties and in the circumstance, insurance company is liable for payment of compensation to third party. Another case of which reliance is placed on a decision - in the matter of oriental insurance co. Ltd. V. Bhal nalkantha khadi gramodyog mandal, 2004 acj 1209 (gujarat) , wherein receipt of premium was issued by agent on proposal form signed by insured was given to authorised agent of the insurance company on 7. 8. 1984 but they were received by the company on 13. 8. 1984 while in between vehicle met with an accident on 8. 8. 8. 1984 but they were received by the company on 13. 8. 1984 while in between vehicle met with an accident on 8. 8. 1984, it was held that since authorised agent received the money as agent of the company, it is a matter between insurance company and its agent and insured is not concerned. (5) It is not disputed that the offending vehicle was insured by appellant. The only dispute is that at the time of accident the offending vehicle was insured at 1. 30 p. M. Or not? according to respondent no. 3 the amount was paid at 11. 20 a. M. From the office of respondent no. 3 and was paid to shyamlal, agent of the appellant. As per policy, exh. D3, the time of issuance is 4. 50 p. M. The best witness was shyamlal who is either an employee or agent of the appellant but he was not examined for the reasons best known to the appellant. (6) For issuance of policy, a proposal form is also required to be issued. Before issuance of policy the amount has to be deposited in the office of appellant for which receipt has to be issued by appellant insurance company but the said receipt is not placed on record. To prove that how many transactions took place on that day in the office of appellant and payment received by the respondent no. 3 was at which serial number, no record has been submitted. If the entire record of receipt of that day would have been filed by the appellant it would be helpful to this court to ascertain that at what time the insurance came in existence. It is also not explained that how the engine number, chassis number and other particulars of vehicle were mentioned in policy, exh. D3 without physical verification of the vehicle as before issuance of policy, physical verification of the vehicle is mandatory. In these circumstances, no illegality has been committed by learned tribunal in holding the appellant insurance company liable for payment of compensation. In view of this, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.