Judgment ( 1. ) BEING aggrieved by the award dated 22-12-2000 passed by I MACT, m andsaur in Claim Case No. 6/99 whereby the claim petition filed by respondent nos. 1 to 3 was allowed and a sum of Rs. 1,71,000/- was awarded as compensation in a death case and respondent No. 4- Insurance Company was exonerated, the present appeal has been filed. ( 2. ) SHORT facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed a claim petition alleging that on 17-12-98, Nandlal who Was husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was going on his panther moped from village Hadi to Village Manasa through Pipliya, at that time tractor bearing registration No. MP 14 K 1164 which was being driven by appellant No. 1 and owned by appellant No. 2 dashed Nandlal with the result he died. It was alleged that offending tractor was insured with respondent No. 4 and the tractor was being driven rashly and negligently, therefore respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are entitled for compensation from appellant and respondent No. 4. ( 3. ) THE claim petition was contested by appellant and also by respondent No. 4. The defence of respondent No. 4 Was that accident took place on 17-12-98 while the policy was issued for the period from 19-12-98 to 18-12-99. It is submitted that since no policy was in existence when the accident took place, therefore respondent No. 4- Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. ( 4. ) ON the basis of pleadings of parties, learned Tribunal framed the issues, recorded the evidence and allowed the claim petition filed by respondent nos. 1 to 3 and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,71,000/- and exonerated respondent No. 4 on the ground that there was no policy on the date of accident. Being aggrieved by the direction whereby respondent No. 4 was exonerated the present appeal has been filed by the appellants who are owner and driver of the offending vehicle. ( 5. ) LEARNED Counsel for appellant submits that offending tractor was purchased by appellant No. 2 under a hire purchase scheme after taking loan from Land Development Bank and cheque of premium was signed by the appellant No. 2 and was handed over to the Manager of the Bank by whom the offending tractor was financed. ( 5. ) LEARNED Counsel for appellant submits that offending tractor was purchased by appellant No. 2 under a hire purchase scheme after taking loan from Land Development Bank and cheque of premium was signed by the appellant No. 2 and was handed over to the Manager of the Bank by whom the offending tractor was financed. It is submitted that not only the amount was debited in the account of appellant No. 2 on 17-2-98 but the cheque was also issued in favour of respondent No. 4 on that date which is evident from Exh. D-7, therefore in view of Section 64-VB of The Insurance Act, 1938, learned tribunal committed error in exonerating the respondent No. 4. For this contention, reliance was placed on Section 64-VB of The Insurance Act, which lays down that- "no insurer shall assume any risk in India in respect of any insurance business on which premium is not ordinarily payable outside India unless and until the premium payable is received by him or is guaranteed to be paid by such person in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed or unless and until deposit of such amount as may be prescribed, is made in advance in the prescribed manner. " ( 6. ) LEARNED Counsel further submits that appellant moved an application on 4-2-2000 for impleading the Land Development Bank as party. This application was wrongly rejected by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that since appellant No. 2 already paid the amount of premium prior to the accident, therefore, learned Tribunal committed error in exonerating the respondent No. 4 and also committed error in dismissing the application. In alternative, it is submitted that case be remanded with a direction to implead the land Development Bank as party. ( 7. ) LEARNED Counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that ample evidence is on record to prove that proposal form was given on 18-12-98 and the policy was issued on 19-12-98. It is submitted that all this happened after the accident, therefore, Insurance Company has rightly been exonerated. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of National Insurance company Vs. It is submitted that all this happened after the accident, therefore, Insurance Company has rightly been exonerated. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of National Insurance company Vs. Smt. Chhaya Lokhenda, 2007 (2) M. P. H. T. 157 (DB) = 2007 (2)MPLJ 493 , wherein it was held that- "where there was no insurance of the vehicle on the date when the accident occurred, the Insurance Company in the absence of any insurance cannot be held responsible to indemnify the owner". ( 8. ) FURTHER reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of New India assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Amirkhan, 2002 (I) MPWN 51 , wherein in a case where accident took place prior to commencement of the policy, it was held that insurer cannot be held liable. ( 9. ) RELIANCE was also placed on a decision in the matter of New India assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sita Bai, AIR 1999 SC 3577 , wherein it was held that policy becomes effective from the specific time mentioned in policy and not from previous midnight. In this case policy was issued con 16-4-1987 while accident took place on 16-4-1987 at 10 a. m. , it was held that Insurance company cannot be fastened with the liability to pay compensation. ( 10. ) TO prove this fact that premium was charged from the appellant No. 2, appellant No. 2 has examined Banshilal, Accountant of Land Development bank who has stated that premium was paid by appellant No. 2 and after debiting the account of appellant No. 2 the same was given to respondent No. 4/insurance Company on 17-12-1998 itself and statement of Accountant is exh. D-6, which shows that on 17-12-98, amount of premium was debited in the loan account. However he has admitted that he has no knowledge how and when the amount was paid to respondent No. 4. There is nothing on record to show that premium was paid to respondent No. 4 prior to the date of accident, i. e. , 17-12-1998. Since policy issued by the respondent No. 4 was in force w. e. f. 19-12-98 while the alleged accident took place on 17-12-98, therefore its illegality was committed by the learned Tribunal in dismissing the application filed for impleading the bank as party. Since policy issued by the respondent No. 4 was in force w. e. f. 19-12-98 while the alleged accident took place on 17-12-98, therefore its illegality was committed by the learned Tribunal in dismissing the application filed for impleading the bank as party. Since considerable time has lapsed and no specific ground has been raised by the appellant in the memo of appeal regarding dismissal of the application and also no action has been taken by the appellant against the concerned bank, therefore, no relief can be granted to the appellant in the present appeal. In view of this, the appeal stands dismissed.