Judgment M.Y. Eqbal, J.-This appeal by the owner of the vehicle is directed against the judgment and award dated 12.12.2007 passed by 5th Additional District Judge-cum-Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (FTC.), Dumka in Title Claim Suit No. 55/04 whereby he has awarded Rs 3,19,000/- as compensation and held that the appellant-owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the said compensation. 2. The claimants-respondents, who are the willow and four minor children filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/- (rupees nine lacs) for the death of Md. Kadir Ansari in a motor accident. 3. The facts of the case in brief is that the deceased Md. Kadir Allsari was driving a Tata Truck 407 bearing registration no. BR-40-5442. One Motilal Rai son of Marladeo Rai informed the police that at about 1 P.M. while he was going in a motorcycle he saw one 407 Truck bearing aforesaid registration number coming from other side in a very rash and negligent manner and dashed one scooter and finally the truck dashed with a big mango tree. Due to the said accident, the driver of the truck died. One of the injured was cleaner of .the truck namely, Reyaz Ansari. On the information of Motilal Rai, Dumka P.S. Case No. 83/04 was instituted. 4. Both owner and the Insurance Company contested the claim case by filing written statement. The appellant stated in his written statement inter alia that the vehicle in question was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company limited which effective till Midnight of 4.8.04. The vehicle was under body repairing work from 27.7.2004 till 18.8.2004. The vehicle came on the road on 19.8.2004 at about 10.30 a.m. Further case of the appellant owner of the vehicle was that he went to the office of the Insurance Company and. asked for insurance policy. The Development Officer himself alongwith other staff of the Insurance Company inspected the vehicle, took photograph, engine number, chasis number and scratch number of chesis number on the application form, compared the same with the certificate of registration of previous Insurance Policy and then asked the opposite party to deposit Rs. 4,767/- as premium which was deposited vide receipt no.1069165 dated 19.8.2004 at about 11.00t.a.m. It is contended that the Development Officer and other staff assured him that it shall be issued after arrival of the Branch Manager. 4,767/- as premium which was deposited vide receipt no.1069165 dated 19.8.2004 at about 11.00t.a.m. It is contended that the Development Officer and other staff assured him that it shall be issued after arrival of the Branch Manager. The appellant alleged that the Development Officer of the Insurance Company has conspired and committed forgery and manipulation while giving time in the insurance policy. According to the appellant, the policy was effective from 11.00 A.M. on 19.8.2004 and therefore, Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. 5. The claimant examined witnesses in support of their case. The issue with regard to liability has been elaborately discussed by the Tribunal. It would be worth to reproduce the findings recorded in paragraph 10 of the judgment, which is as under:- "10. It is admitted fact that earlier the vehicle in question was insured with Oriental Insurance Company vide policy No. 332401/O/O/MV 1762/2004, from 5.8.03 to 4.8.04 and the policy was lapsed then on 19.8.04., till the vehicle was again insured from 4:20 P.M. of 19.8.04 till midnight of 18.8.05 and original insurance policy is Exbt. C on record. The receipt No. 1069165 dated 19.8.04 is Exbt D which shows that O.P. No.1 has deposited in Cash Rs. 4,767/- towards the premium and the difference no. is 23. There are letter and registry receipt which are Exbts. F and E. On record which goes to show that Shiv Kr. Agrawal on 20.8.04 has written a letter to the Branch Manager regarding the wrong mention of time of starting of the Policy. The form of pre-insurance inspection report is Exbt. F/1. The original, proposal form is on record which shows that on 19.8.04 at about 4:20 P.M. The proposal form Exbt. G was submitted and Shiv Kumar has written that his truck is in good condition. The 'H' series is various Insurance Policy of other person which shows that the same are given in sequence and which is filed against the Insurance Policy only to show that at about 4:20 P.M. on 19.8.04. The Insurance Policy of the said truck was given to Shiv Kr. Agrawal and his policy is Exbt. H/5 on record. Exbt. 1 is details of the computerized receipt which shows that by collection no. 2358, Shiv Kr. Agrawal name finds place. That is the full receipt of 19.8.04 and the same starts with the collection no. 2345 and ends at 2360. Agrawal and his policy is Exbt. H/5 on record. Exbt. 1 is details of the computerized receipt which shows that by collection no. 2358, Shiv Kr. Agrawal name finds place. That is the full receipt of 19.8.04 and the same starts with the collection no. 2345 and ends at 2360. The Insurance Company O.P. No. 2 has filed this document only to show that at about 4.20 P.M. Shiv Kr. Agrawal has produced the proposal form and deposited the money. Exbt. 'J' is true copy of in mail register to show that they have not received any letter of the owner of the truck. Exbt. K is previous policy of the vehicle in question which is in any way not disputed. Exbt. L is pre-insurance inspection report and Exbt. M is investigation Report, Nirmal Kr.Gaun has deposited before the Investigating Officer that the occurrence took place at about 11.30 A.M. I have gone through all the documents on record minutely and find that from perusal of the document, it appears that the proposal form was received at about 4.20 P.M. Although there is misplacing of the number of the proposal form but it is admitted fact that proposal forms are given to the agents in different serial number so it happens and it cannot be treated as irregularity committed on the part of the Oriental Insurance Company O.P. NO.2. On 29.3.06 Technical Department Oriental Insurance Company has issued the guidelines which is Exbt. L on record. It is written that they are issuing fresh guideline about various aspect of motor insurance. The learned counsel of O.P. No. 1 has tried to impress the Court that earlier also guideline were given regarding the proposal form but no such guideline has been proved on record and as per this guideline there must be inspection by the officers of the company of vehicle in question. D.W. 1 Nageshwar Mukhia who is examined on behalf of O.P. No. 2 has stated before the Court that they have received the proposal form on good faith. As the case may be presently the situation is that O.P. No. 1 has brought the case that the vehicle was insured since 11.00 A.M. on 19.8.04 whereas the case of the O.P. No.2 is that the same was insured since 4.20 P.M. on 19.8.04. As the case may be presently the situation is that O.P. No. 1 has brought the case that the vehicle was insured since 11.00 A.M. on 19.8.04 whereas the case of the O.P. No.2 is that the same was insured since 4.20 P.M. on 19.8.04. In National Insurance Company vs. Indirabai and Another, 1992 ACJ 292 , the policy issued had no time mentioned and the Hon'ble Court has ruled that whether a policy issued expressly specifying the date and time of issue on the cover note or the policy, covers risk in respect of accident occurred earlier on the same day, the premium for which was paid and policy was taken after the accident-Held: on. Ironically this is the case of Insurance Company O.P. No.2 also and this ratio is of no help to O.P. No. 1 in my opinion. In Bhal Nalkantha Khadi vs. Jayantilal and Others reported in 1995 ACJ 976 owner of offending vehicle handed over proposal for renewal of insurance coverage and bank draft for the amount of premium to the authorized agent of the Insurance Company on 7.8.84.-Insurance Company received the same from its agent on 13.8.04 and made coverage of insurance from that date-accident on 8.8.84. The Hon'ble Court has held that the Insurance is liable for the award with respect to the accident occurred on 8.8.84. In this case, I find that the money receipt form Exbt. 1 shows that on 19.8.04 itself, Shiv Kr. Agrawal had deposited the premium in cash. So, the citation is also of no help to the O.P. No.1. The Oriental Insurance Company vs. Inderjit Kaur and Others reported in 1998 ACJ 123 is related with dishonour of cheque and liability of the Insurance Company. There is no such fact in the instant case. The National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Chinto Devi and others reported in 2000 ACJ 1597 is relied upon by the O.P. No.1, to prove that they are not liable to pay the compensation. There is no such fact in the instant case. The National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Chinto Devi and others reported in 2000 ACJ 1597 is relied upon by the O.P. No.1, to prove that they are not liable to pay the compensation. This case was also discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company vs. Smt. Sabina lakai and Others in Civil Appeal No. 1393/01 decided on 9.7.07 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which the Hon'ble Court has held that if time is mentioned in the Insurance Policy or cover note the effectiveness of the policy would start from that time and date and not from an earlier point of time. If the accident took place on that very date before the time which is mentioned in the insurance policy, the insurer will not be liable to indemnify the insured. If the time is not mentioned in the Insurance Policy it would commence from the date of which means midnight and in case the accident occurred on the date of taking the policy the insurer will be liable to meet the liability of the insured under the award. In this case, the time 4.20 P.M. is mentioned in the policy which commence on 19.8.04. So as per ratio of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Sabina lakia and Others in my opinion, The Oriental Insurance Company O.P. NO.2 is not liable to pay the compensation, rather it is O.P. No. 1 (owner) who is only liable to pay the compensation and satisfy the award. Issue NO.5 is accordingly decided." 6. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment of the Tribunal as being illegal and contrary to the facts available on record. Learned counsel submitted that the vehicle was inspected on the relevant date at 11 A.M. and proposal was submitted and premium was paid at that time. The insurance policy, therefore, commenced from 11 A.M. and not from 4.20 P.M. from 19.8.2004. Learned counsel submitted that this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Tribunal. 7. The only question, therefore, that falls for consideration is as to whether the finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse and without any basis. 8. The insurance policy, therefore, commenced from 11 A.M. and not from 4.20 P.M. from 19.8.2004. Learned counsel submitted that this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Tribunal. 7. The only question, therefore, that falls for consideration is as to whether the finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse and without any basis. 8. Admittedly, accident took place on 19.8.2004 at 1 P.M. The time and place of accident has been admitted only by the claimants but also by the appellant-owner of the vehicle. It is also not in dispute that earlier the vehicle was insured for the period from 5.8.2003 to 4.8.2004. The policy was lapsed after 4.8.2004. On 19.8.2004 the vehicle was again insured. The proposal form was proved and marked exhibit. From perusal of proposal form, it appears that tile same was received at 4.20 P.M. on 19.8.2004. Just after submission of proposal form, premium was paid and policy of insurance was issued specifically mentioning date and time of its commencement. From perusal of the policy, it is evidently clear that it commenced on 19.8.2004 from 4.20 P.M. After re-appreciation of the entire oral as well as documentary evidence we are of the definite opinion that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is neither perverse nor contrary to facts and evidence on record. 9. As noticed above, admittedly, the accident took place on 19.8.2004 at 1 P.M. Prima facie, therefore, proposal form was submitted after the accident took place. The insurance policy was issued mentioning specific date and time i.e. 19.8.2004 at 4.20 P.M. Therefore, there is no doubt in our mind that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for the death and injury caused by the vehicle in an accident which took place prior to the insurance of the vehicle. 10. In the case of "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. VS. Sunita Rathi and Others" [ (1998)1 SCC 365 ], the Supreme Court observed:- "2.The motor accident occurred on 1 0.12.1991 at 2.20 p.m. It was only thereafter the same day at 2.55 p.m. that the insurance policy and the cover note were obtained by the insured, owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. Ltd. VS. Sunita Rathi and Others" [ (1998)1 SCC 365 ], the Supreme Court observed:- "2.The motor accident occurred on 1 0.12.1991 at 2.20 p.m. It was only thereafter the same day at 2.55 p.m. that the insurance policy and the cover note were obtained by the insured, owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. There is express mention in the cover note that the effective date and time of commencement of the insurance for the purpose of the Act was 10.12.1991 at 2.55 p.m. The applicability of the decision in Ram Dayal case has to be considered on these facts. In our opinion the decision in Ram Dayal case is distinguishable and has no application to the facts of this case. The facts of that decision show that the time of issuance of the policy was not mentioned therein and the question, therefore, was of presumption when the date alone was mentioned and not the time at which the insurance was to become effective on that date. In such a situation, it was held in Ram Dayal case that in the absence of any specific time being mentioned, the logical inference to draw was that the insurance became effective from the previous midnight and, therefore, for an accident which took place on the date of the policy, the insurer became liable. There is no such difficulty in the present case in view of the clear finding based on undisputed facts that the accident occurred at 2.20 p.m. and the cover note was obtained only thereafter at 2.55 p.m. in which it was expressly mentioned that the effective date and time of commencement of the insurance for the purpose of the Act was 10.12.1991 at 2,55 p.m. The reliance on Ram Dayal case by the Tribunal and the High Court was, therefore, misplaced. We find that in a similar situation, the same view which we have taken, was also the view in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jikubhai Nathuiji Dabhil wherein Ram Dayal case was distinguished on the same basis 11. In the case of "New India Assurance Co. vs. Bhagwati Devi and Others" [ (1998)6 SCC 534 ], the Supreme Court observed:- "2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are minimal. The appellant-insurance company sold a policy at about 4 p.m. on 17.2.1989. Ltd. vs. Jikubhai Nathuiji Dabhil wherein Ram Dayal case was distinguished on the same basis 11. In the case of "New India Assurance Co. vs. Bhagwati Devi and Others" [ (1998)6 SCC 534 ], the Supreme Court observed:- "2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are minimal. The appellant-insurance company sold a policy at about 4 p.m. on 17.2.1989. Undeniably, it had been bought at a time when an accident pertaining to the vehicle insured had already taken place at about 9 a.m. the same day. The fatal accident occurring thereby gave rise to a claim for damages before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The same was allowed on the strength of the decision of this Court aforementioned, correctness of which has been challenged. The said decision proceeded on the legal fiction that when a policy is taken on a particular date, its effectiveness would start from the commencement of that date which is from the previous midnight. The accident taking place at any time during the day would be covered by the policy. Later a three-member Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi has taken the view that when there is a special contract mentioning in the policy the time when it was bought, it would be operative from that lime and not fictionally from the previous midnight. In the said case, the policy had been bought at about 4 p.m. on the day of the accident and, thus, was not allowed to be operative from midnight; the accident having occurred around 11 a.m. on that date. The principle deduced is thus clear that should there be no contract to the contrary, an insurance policy becomes operative from the previous midnight, when bought during the day following. However, in case there is mention of a specific time for its purchase then a special contract to the contrary comes into being and the policy would be effective from the mentioned time. The law on this aspect has been put to rest by this Court. There is, thus, nothing further for us to deliberate upon." 12. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the finding recorded by the Tribunal, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Jaya Roy, J.-I agree.