ORDER 1. Brief facts relevant for the purposes of this appeal are that one Arun Kumar Nema, son of Late Shri B.L. Nema, aged about 30 years was Assistant Professor in Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Jabalpur, at a salary of Rs. 3,585/- per month. While driving his Scooter on 1.12.1989, he was hit by a Tempoo bearing registration No. MBK7717 at about 9:30 a.m. He was immediately taken to Medical College Hospital, Jabalpur, where he died on 3.12.1989. His mother and brother submitted a Claim Petition for compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, with allegation that the offending tempo was being driven by respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent manner. It was owned by respondent No.4 and was further transferred to respondent No.5. It was stated to be insured with the appellant Insurance Company. 2. Appellant (Insurance Company) denied its liability on the ground that the insurance policy was obtained subsequent to the accident by fraudulent misrepresentation. 3. Claims Tribunal vide its award dated 7.5.1996 allowed the claim to the tune of Rs. 5,86,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum. Liability was also fastened on the Insurance Company in joint and several manner with respondents No.3 & 4. 4. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal acted with illegality in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company because the insurance policy was issued at 1: 10 p.m. on 1.12.1989, whereas, the accident had occurred at 9:30 a.m. on the same day. Reliance has been placed on the following Supreme Court's decisions in the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. likubai Nathuji Dalhi [ (1997) 1 SCC 66 ], New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhagwati Devi and others [1999 (I) MPWN 13 = (1998) 6 SCC 534 ] and National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Chinto Devi and others [ (2000) 7 SCC 50 ]. Accordingly, it is almost a settled law that in case of mention of the time of insurance in the policy, the policy would be operative from that time. 5. Per contra; it is contended by learned counsel for respondents that when a policy is taken on a particular date, its effectiveness is from the commencement of the date. 6. Policy of insurance as contained in Ex. D 1/ A was admittedly issued on 1.12.1989. 5. Per contra; it is contended by learned counsel for respondents that when a policy is taken on a particular date, its effectiveness is from the commencement of the date. 6. Policy of insurance as contained in Ex. D 1/ A was admittedly issued on 1.12.1989. It is to be now examined whether the same was made effective from 1: 10 p.m. on that day. On perusal of Ex. D 1/ A, it may be seen that period of insurance is mentioned as from 1.12.1989 to 30.11.1990 without specifying the time. Thus, at appropriate place, not time but only date of effectivity of insurance policy is mentioned as 1.12.1989 and no specific time is mentioned. It is true that an endorsement to the following effect appears on Ex. D 1/ A. For U/W ................................ Sd/- 1.12.1989 at 1: 10 p.m. This endorsement is made against column serial Nos. 1 to 6. It is necessary to consider the matter which is written in total 18 columns in order to appreciate that whether there was any occasion to mention accurate time of commencement of policy in front of any of the columns.Column/Clause 1 to 18, are reproduced below for this purpose: "1. Do you desire a Comprehensive Policy? (a) If not please state the cover required. (b) If you do not wish to cover Riot and Strike Risk, Flood, Earthquake Risks Please specify which ............. 2. Do you wish to insure loss of or damage to neck-rest, sun visor or such other non electric items fitted to the vehicle? If so, please state value of each such item separately... 3. Do you wish to insure loss of or damage to extra fittings such a Tape-Recorders. Air conditioners, Fans or musical Horn fitted in the vehicle? If so, please state the make, year of manufature and estimated value of each item. 4. What kind of tyres are fitted (i.e. Steel or pheumatic)? 5. Has the vehicle rear dual wheels and or double springs? 6. State the total number of drivers and cleaners/attendants employed on the vehicle. 7. What is the total number of Motor Vehicles owned by you .... 8. (a) Will vehicle ply for hire?.... If not, state if goods will be conveyed for sale and their nature (b) Is your vehicle fitted with a Fibre Glass Tank, give value 9. 6. State the total number of drivers and cleaners/attendants employed on the vehicle. 7. What is the total number of Motor Vehicles owned by you .... 8. (a) Will vehicle ply for hire?.... If not, state if goods will be conveyed for sale and their nature (b) Is your vehicle fitted with a Fibre Glass Tank, give value 9. Please state the type of permit under which the vehicle is registered: (a) Private Carrier .... .... .... (b) Public Carrier .... .... .... (c) Contract Carrier .... .... .... (d) Stage Carrier .... .... .... (e) If otherwise than above, give full particulars (f) Does the licence under which your vehicle is registered extend to allow carriage of persons? If so, state number permitted. 10. If a passenger vehicle, state the total licensed passenger carrying capacity. 11. Have you or your drivers ever been find in connection with the use of a Motor Vehicle or had your/their licence endorsed? 12. Do you or does any other person who to your knowledge will drive suffer from defective vision or hearing or from any physical infirmity? 13. Have you previously held Motor Vehicle Insurance? If so, state Name of Company, Policy Number and date of expiry.... 14. Has any Company or underwriter at any time (a) Declined your proposal? (b) Required an increased premium or special conditions? (c) Cancelled or refused to renew your Motor Vehicle Insurance? (d) Stipulated for your bearing a portion of all/any claims arising under the policy? 15. Have any accidents happened to the Motor Vehicle or have any claims been made upon or by you in connection with a Motor Vehicle during the past three years? If so, give brief particulars. 16. Do you desire to increase the standard limit of indemnity shown overleaf in respect of liability to the public? If so, state whether unlimited indemnity is required. 17. Are you willing to bear of each and every claim or loss the first Rs. 1,000/-, Rs. 2,500/-, Rs. 7,500/- or Rs. 10,000/-? If so please state amount. 18. Are you entitled to 'No Claim Bonus' from your previous insurance in respect of any vehicle described above? If so, please attach Renewal Notice (s)."A bare work on the aforesaid clauses makes it crystal clear that there was no occasion to mention time of commencement of the policy in front of or against any of the column/clause. 7. 18. Are you entitled to 'No Claim Bonus' from your previous insurance in respect of any vehicle described above? If so, please attach Renewal Notice (s)."A bare work on the aforesaid clauses makes it crystal clear that there was no occasion to mention time of commencement of the policy in front of or against any of the column/clause. 7. There is a specific column to mention period of insurance from ..... to ...... at bottom of Ex. D-1 where period of issuance is mentioned as from I. I 2.1989 to 30.1 1.1990 without specifying the time. Time of effectivity if at all ought to have been mentioned at this place. Appellant Company has examined Sunil Kumar Shrivastava as its witness. He has merely stated that Ex. Dl/A was received by him at 1: 10 p.m. for the purpose of marking. He has not made statement about his status in the office, but has merely stated that he was posted in the Divisional Office at Jabalpur. It is not his statement that it was he only, who accepted the proposal at 1: 10 p.m. or that he was authorised to accept the proposal and the same was accepted at 1: 10 p.m. Appellant Company has not examined the officer who accepted the proposal. Thus, there is no iota of evidence on record about the time of acceptance of proposal. It seems that this witness on receipt of the document Ex. D/A for marking purpose might have put the time about the receipt of the document at his end which cannot be construed as time for commencement of the Insurance Policy, moreso, in the absence of any such mention in the space for the period of insurance where it has been mentioned as from 1.12.1989 to 30.11.1990. 8. Learned Claims Tribunal has rightly observed that the witness Sunil Kumar has not stated in specific that who did make endorsement about "1: 10 p.m." Thus, in the totality of the facts and circumstances, the appellant Company has failed to establish that the policy of insurance was issued or was made effective from 1: 10 p.m. on 1.12.1989. In the absence of any such proof, the policy would become effective from the mid night i.e. 00:00 hours on 1.12.1989. In the absence of any such proof, the policy would become effective from the mid night i.e. 00:00 hours on 1.12.1989. Accident having taken place at 9:30 a.m. On 1.12.1989, the Insurance Company is rightly found liable under the policy of insurance in joint and several manner with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. This case is, thus, squarely covered by the Supreme Court's decision in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramdayal and others [1990 (II) MPWN 90 = 1990 ACJ 545]. 9. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the compensation has been awarded in excessive manner. 10. However, on perusal, it is found that the Claims Tribunal has assessed the dependency @ Rs. 3,000/- per month. Deceased was aged 30 years at the time of accident. Accordingly, multiplier of 16 has been applied. No contrary evidence could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant so as to reduce the amount of compensation which is not found unreasonable, improper or unjust in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. In the result, appeal being devoid of force is, hereby, dismissed however, without order as to costs.