JUDGMENT : B.K. Patel, J. - United India Insurance Company (for short 'the Insurance Company') is in appeal against the Order Dated 27.10.2000 u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, the Act) passed by the Member, 3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Misc. Case No. 334 of 1994 awarding compensation of Rs. 1,49,000 with interest ' 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application i.e. 20.06.1994 till the date of passing of the award within two months failing which the interest would be payable till date of payment in favour of the claimants-Respondents 1 to 5 payable by the Insurance Company, on account of death of deceased Kishore Kumar Maharana in a motor vehicle accident involving the offending vehicle belonging to the Respondent No. 7 Respondent No. 6 was the previous owner of the offending vehicle. On consent the matter was taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. 2. The accident occurred at 10.30 A.M. on 16.3.1994 when the offending vehicle dashed against the scooter which the deceased was driving. It was categorically pleaded in the claim application that the offending vehicle bearing registration No. ORF-4598 was insured with the Appellant Insurance Company under Cover Note No. 264117 during the period of the accident. 3. Respondent No. 6 was set ex parte. Respondent No. 7 filed written statement admitting to have purchased the vehicle from Respondent No. 6. It was also admitted by him that the death of the deceased occurred due to the accident involving the offending vehicle belonging to him. With regard to the insurance of the offending vehicle with the Appellant Insurance Company it was pleaded as follows: 10. Thai, the vehicle of this O.P. has validly insured with O.P. No. 3 i.e., United India Insurance Co, Ltd. Mancheswar Branch, Cuttack Puri Road, Bhubaneswar. 11. That, this O.P. & O.P. No. 1 in whose name R.C. Book stands had gone to the said insurance branch office on 14.03.94 to discuss with its authority regarding the insurance of the vehicle. After discussion, the authority tell them to come on 15.3.94 with the vehicle & money. So the O.P. No. 2 & this O.P. again went to the said Branch Office on 15.3.94 with vehicle & money (cash) & gave the money to the said Insurance Company & O.P. No. 1 signed proposal form (paper for contract). 12. After discussion, the authority tell them to come on 15.3.94 with the vehicle & money. So the O.P. No. 2 & this O.P. again went to the said Branch Office on 15.3.94 with vehicle & money (cash) & gave the money to the said Insurance Company & O.P. No. 1 signed proposal form (paper for contract). 12. That after receiving money & physical verification of the vehicle by the said insurance authority, assured these O.Ps. for insurance of the vehicle & told them to come, after few days to take the insurance papers etc. as the process takes some days. 13. That, after assurance given by the said Insurance Authority the present O.P. allow its vehicle to run the vehicle on the morning of 16.3.94. 14. That, due to ill fate of the O.P. the vehicle met an accident on 16.3.94 at about 10.30 A.M. 15. That, after the accident the local police seized the vehicle immediately & ask this O.P. for production of papers of the vehicle. 16. That, as this O.P. has not received the insurance policy from the said Insurance Company, so he went to the Insurance Company on the same date of accident for the insurance policy & informed the said authority regarding the accident & for urgent need of the insurance policy, but the said company did not hand over the policy or cover note or money receipt to this O.P. & again said to come on 17.03.94. So this O.P. again came to the said insurance company on 17.3.94 & took the money receipt & cover note from the insurance company. 17. That, the time mentioned in the cover note by the said Insurance Company to avoid its liability which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 18. That, as the vehicle has validly insured with the O.P. No. 3 by signing proposal form covering the date of accident. Hence, OP. No. 3 is alone liable to pay the compensation in this case. (sic) 4. In the written statement filed by the Insurance Company the claim was resisted mainly on the ground that the claimants had not produced any document or evidence relating to rash & negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, age & income of the deceased & registration etc. (sic) 4. In the written statement filed by the Insurance Company the claim was resisted mainly on the ground that the claimants had not produced any document or evidence relating to rash & negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, age & income of the deceased & registration etc. of the offending vehicle: As regards claimant's assertion of the offending vehicle to have been insured with the Appellant Insurance Company it was pleaded at paragraph 10: That the applicants have not furnished the details of the insurance policy issued in favour of the alleged vehicle belonging to the O.P. No. 1 bearing Registration No. ORF-4598 (Mata door) covering all risks & in absence of the said policy the involvement of this O.P. No. 3 in the compensation application is not maintainable & is liable to be dismissed with costs. 5. In order to substantiate their respective assertions claimants examined two witnesses including deceased's father as P.W.1 & relied upon certified copies of documents marked Exts. 1 to 5 which arc certified copies of documents obtained from the criminal case record instituted in Connection with the accident. The Insurance Company examined Manager of its Mancheswar Branch as O.P.W. 1 & also relied upon Exts. A to C which are office copies of money receipt dated 17.03.94, Cover Note dated 16.03.94 & policy dated 17.03.94 issued in favour of Respondent No. 7. No evidence was adduced on behalf of Respondent No. 7. On consideration of materials & evidence on record, Learned Tribunal passed the impugned award holding the Insurance Company to be liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 6. In support of the appeal, upon reference to the evidence of O.P.W. 1 & the contents of copies of Cover Note Ext. B & Insurance Policy Ext. C, it was submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company that the Cover Note & the Insurance Policy were issued to the Respondent No. 7 in respect of the offending vehicle covering risk w.e.f. 2.40 PM. on 16.3.94. On the basis of such submission it was argued that the accident having admittedly occurred at 10.30 A.M. on 16.03.1994, it is obvious that the insurance policy was taken after the accident for which the Insurance Company is not liable to be saddled with any liability arising out of the accident. on 16.3.94. On the basis of such submission it was argued that the accident having admittedly occurred at 10.30 A.M. on 16.03.1994, it is obvious that the insurance policy was taken after the accident for which the Insurance Company is not liable to be saddled with any liability arising out of the accident. In this context, leaned Counsel for the Insurance Company placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sita Barik and Ors. 2000 (1) TAG. 3 (SC), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rakesh Talwar 2000 (3) TAC 229 (SC) & National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sobina Lakai and Ors. 2007 (3) TAC 19 (SC) & of this Court in Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ushanta Kumar Choudhury ' Usmanta and Another, . 7. In reply, Learned Counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the Learned Tribunal has rightly observed in the impugned award that the Insurance Company has not pleaded in the written statement regarding non-coverage of the policy issued to the Respondent No. 7 in respect of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. It was also submitted that the Respondent No. 7 categorically pleaded in his written statement that the proposal for the insurance policy was submitted & the policy amount was paid by him on 15.3.94, but the Insurance Company deliberately issued Cover Note & policy w.e.f. 2.40 P.M, on 16.3.94 after knowing that the vehicle had met with an accident at 10.30 A.M. on that date. Despite such averments in the written statement the Insurance Company did not file additional written statement denying liability on the ground that the offending vehicle was not insured at the time of accident. It was argued that in absence of specific pleading, the defence of non-coverage set up at a belated stage by adducing evidence without backed by pleading is liable to be ignored. Learned Counsel for the claimants relied upon decisions in M.A. Razak v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. 1999 (I) TAC 328 (Ori.), Sripati Charan Mondal and Anr. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2000 (3) TAC. 460 (Cal.); United India Insurance Co. v. Sashiprava Swain and Anr. 1994 (1) TAC 205 ; Mahipalpur Co-operative Society Ltd. etc. Vs. Prabhati and Others, ; Smt. Jhulan Rani Saha v. The National Insurance Com. and Ors. Ltd. and Ors. 1999 (I) TAC 328 (Ori.), Sripati Charan Mondal and Anr. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2000 (3) TAC. 460 (Cal.); United India Insurance Co. v. Sashiprava Swain and Anr. 1994 (1) TAC 205 ; Mahipalpur Co-operative Society Ltd. etc. Vs. Prabhati and Others, ; Smt. Jhulan Rani Saha v. The National Insurance Com. and Ors. AIR 1994 Gau 41 ; Habeeb Khan and others Vs. Valasula Devi and others, ; & United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Abada Khatun and Ors. 1998 (2) TAC (Ori.). 8. Ext. B the carbon copy of Cover Note in respect of the offending vehicle bears the date & time of "16.3.94" "2.40 PM" respectively. In the body of Ext. B also there is mention of time as "2.40 PM" & the dates 16th March, 1994" & "15th March, 1995". In Ext. C the copy of insurance policy period of insurance has been mentioned from 2.40 PM on 16th March 1994 td midnight on 15th March 1995. The date of issue of insurance policy has been mentioned as 17th March, 1994. It further appears that Ext. A the money receipt towards policy amount paid by Respondent No. 7 was issued on 17.3.94. Undisputedly, in the written statement filed by Appellant-Insurance Company no plea was taken to the effect that insurance policy issued to Respondent No. 7 was taken at 2.40 PM on 16.3.94 for which Insurance Company was not liable to cover liability arising out of the accident which took place at 10.30 AM on 16.3.94. 9. The following propositions with regard to coverage of insurance policy have been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sabina Lakai and Ors. (supra): (i) If time is mentioned in the insurance policy or cover note, the effectiveness of the policy would start from that time & date & not from an earlier point of time; (ii) If the. accident takes 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; (iii) If the time, is not mentioned in the insurance policy, it would commence from the date which means midnight & in case-the accident occurred on the date of taking the policy, the insurer will be liable to meet the liability of the injured under the award. Law is well settled that where a specific time has been mentioned in the insurance policy, the insurance will be effective only for the time, specifically mentioned in the insurance policy & not from the previous midnight & in such a case the owner is liable for compensation. There is no dispute to the propositions as laid down in the decisions cited by the Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company. 10. However, claimants' stand is that in the absence of any plea, much less specific plea, in the written statement filed by the Insurance Company, in spite of the fact that Respondent No. 7 the owner of the offending vehicle pleaded in his written statement that policy amount & proposal for insurance policy was received by the Insurance Company on 15.3.94, evidence, oral & documentary, adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company to substantiate the plea, Which was never pleaded, is liable to be ignored. At para 17 of the written statement extracted above, Respondent No. 7 had categorically pleaded that the time mentioned in the Cover Note to avoid his liability is not acceptably in view of the fact that proposal for issuance of insurance policy along with required amount was paid as early as on 15.3.94. 11. In M.A. Razak v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. (supra) it has been reiterated by this Court that in absence of any specific plea, the insurer cannot be permitted to adduce any evidence: 12. In Sripati Charan Mandal and Anr. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) upon reference to Order VI, Rules 1 & 2 as well as Order VIII, Rules 2 & 3 it has been held by the Calcutta High Court that the question of fact by way of defence has to be specifically' raised in the written statement or objection. It is also well known that the general or mere denial in the written statement is not sufficient & the denial must not be the evasive but specific & necessary. 13. In Mahipalpur Co-op. Society Ltd. v. Smt. Prabhati and Ors. (supra) it has been held by Delhi high Court that no amount of evidence can be looked into on a plea which has not been pleaded. 14. In Smt. Jhulan Rani Sana v. The National Insurance Company and Ors. 13. In Mahipalpur Co-op. Society Ltd. v. Smt. Prabhati and Ors. (supra) it has been held by Delhi high Court that no amount of evidence can be looked into on a plea which has not been pleaded. 14. In Smt. Jhulan Rani Sana v. The National Insurance Company and Ors. (supra) it has been pointed out that though in many respects the Motor Accident Tribunal is free from technicalities of the C.P.C. & Evidence Act; but this does not mean that pleading need not be specific, clear & need not contain requisite pleas or data. 15. In the present case it was specifically pleaded by the claimants that the Appellant-Insurance Company had issued Cover Note No. 264117 to Respondent No. 7 in respect of the offending vehicle. Respondent No. 7 pleaded that he paid money & submitted proposal for policy to the Insurance Company on 15.03.1994 & that the money receipt as well as Cover Note were not-handed over to him till 17.03.1994. It was categorically alleged by Respondent No. 7 in his written statement that the time mentioned in the Cover Note to avoid its liability was not sustainable in the eye of law. On the face of such pleading Insurance Company did not plead at any point of time that Respondent No. 7 was not insured with regard to the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Insurance coverage was not denied specifically. Rather, written statement filed by the Insurance Company appears to contain evasive replies instead of specific denial. Therefore, it was not permissible under law to the Insurance Company to adduce evidence by examining OPW 1. Moreover, though OPW 1 stated in his examination-in-chief that prior to receipt of policy amount under money receipt Ext. A, Cover Note was issued in respect of the offending vehicle on 16.03.1994, in his cross-examination it is admitted by him that before issuance of Cover Note policy amount is to be accepted. He also stated to have no personal knowledge as to when the Development Officer of the Insurance Company accepted the policy amount. In such circumstances, Learned Tribunal is found to have rightly placed no reliance on the evidence adduced on behalf of Insurance Company, The Insurance. Company has rightly been held to be liable to satisfy the award. He also stated to have no personal knowledge as to when the Development Officer of the Insurance Company accepted the policy amount. In such circumstances, Learned Tribunal is found to have rightly placed no reliance on the evidence adduced on behalf of Insurance Company, The Insurance. Company has rightly been held to be liable to satisfy the award. 16, Before parting with this case it is felt pertinent to observe regarding the unsatisfactory nature of pleadings in the written statements usually filed by the Insurance Companies in most of the claim cases in the State. Written statements are filed pleading ignorance & lack of knowledge without ascertaining facts, particulars & data. Investigation is seldom made regarding averments made in the claim application before filing of written statement. It is desirable that officers entrusted with handling litigations should bestow utmost care to ensure that all material facto are pleaded in the written statements so that parties to claim proceedings would be aware of respective stands before adducing evidence. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed.