JUDGMENT 1. The issue involved in this civil miscellaneous appeal is whether the Company is liable to pay compensation to the accident victim, when the contract of insurance commenced only from the Midnight of 18.1.2002 and whether the Tribunal went wrong, in giving effect to the same from 17.1.2002, date of accident, when admittedly, insurance cover expired on 15.1.2002. 2. Brief facts leading to the appeal are as follows: On 17.2.2002, about 6.00 p.m., when the respondent/claimant was travelling as a pillion rider in a bicycle, driven by his friend from Thirukkanur to Pondicherry, near Matrampattu, a Tractor and Trailer, bearing Registration No. PYT 253 and PY 01 E 8619 respectively, loaded with sugarcane, attempted to overtake a cycle and in that process, the sugarcane load, carried in the trailer, fell on them and the respondent/claimant, sustained injuries in his left shoulder, left side of the chest and abrasions all over the body. Immediately, he was taken to Government Hospital, Pondicherry and given treatment. According to him, he was a Welder, earning Rs. 150/- per day. He claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 3. Denying the manner of accident, the owner of the Tractor-cum-Trailer has filed a counter affidavit, contending inter alia that the respondent/claimarjit was travelling as a pillion rider in a TVS-50 Moped, bearing Registration No. PY 01 N 2172 and it was the motorcyclist, who attempted to overtake the Tractor, fell down and sustained injuries. He also denied the contention that the respondent/claimant, sustained injuries. 4. The appellant-Insurance Company, in its counter affidavit, while denying the manner of accident, submitted that there is no valid insurance policy at the relevant time of accident and that therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation. They prayed for dismissal of the claim, against the Company. 5. Before the Claims Tribunal, the respondent/claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and P.W.2, is the Doctor, who examined the respondent/claimant, with reference to medical records. Exhibits P-1 to P-18 have been marked on the side of the respondent/claimant. On behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company, an administrative officer of company has been examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 to B-6, have been marked. 6. Upon evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Claims Tribunal fixed negligence on the driver of the Tractor-cum-Trailer. Exhibits P-1 to P-18 have been marked on the side of the respondent/claimant. On behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company, an administrative officer of company has been examined as R.W.1 and Exhibits B-1 to B-6, have been marked. 6. Upon evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Claims Tribunal fixed negligence on the driver of the Tractor-cum-Trailer. As regards liability, the Claims Tribunal has recorded as follows: “The accident has occurred on 17.1.2002 at about 6.00 p.m. The Tractor and Trailer have valid insurance policy for the period from 16.1.2001 to the midnight of 15.1.2002 and the same have been marked as Exhibits B-6 and B-7. 16.1.2002 was a public holiday. The insurance policy for the tractor and trailer for the period from the midnight of 18.1.2003 to the midnight of 17.1.2004 was marked as Exhibits A-3 and A-4. The insurance policy in question is marked as Exhibits B-3 and B-4 and they are for the, period from the midnight of 18.1.2002 to the midnight of 17.1.2003 for the tractor and trailer.” 7. R.W.1, Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company, in his chief examination, has stated that the Tractor and trailer have no valid insurance policy from the midnight of 15.1.2002 to the midnight of 18.1.2002. On that basis, before the Claims Tribunal, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has contended that as Exhibits B-3 and B-4, Insurance Policy, contain a specific mention, that the effective date and commencement of insurance was only from the midnight of 18.1.2002 and that the accident has occurred on 17.1.2002 about 6.00 p.m., and therefore, the Company was not liable to pay compensation to the accident victim and in support of the same, the Company has relied on decision in Oriental Insurance Company v. Sunita Rathi AIR 1998 SC 257 : 1998 ACJ 121 : (1998) 1 SCC 365 . 8. Per contra, before the Claims Tribunal, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant has contended that though the accident has occurred on 17.1.2002, at 6.00 p.m., premium for the insurance policy for the period from 18.1.2002 to 17.1.2003, has been paid on 17.1.2002 itself and that when the premium amount has been received for renewal of the earlier policy, the Company is liable to pay compensation. He has relied on a decision of this Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vridhachalam, South Arcot v. S. Viswanathan 2003 (2) CTC 72 : LNIND 2002 Mad 1426 and contended that the Court should lean in favour of the insured, if there was any discrepancy in the policy of insurance. 9. In the above reported case, the policy expired on 20.2.1992. The accident has occurred on 23.2.1992. Cheque, dated 20.2.1992, has been issued in favour of the Insurance Company towards payment of premium to renew the policy with effect from 20.2.2002 and in the abovesaid circumstances, the Company has been held liable to indemnify the insured. 10. Reverting back to the case on hand, by observing that receipt of the amount towards the policy is only for renewal and not for a fresh policy and though the policy contains a express provision that it was effective only from the midnight of 18.1.2002, as premium for renewal has been obtained from the Insurance Company, during the Office hours on the date of accident, i.e., 17.1.2002, at 6.00 p.m., the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal has quantified the compensation at Rs. 1,32,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of claim, till the date of realisation. Now let me consider the decisions relied on by both counsel. 11. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal (1990) 2 SCC 680 , the vehicle was insured upto 31.8.1984. Thereafter, it was not renewed. A fresh insurance was taken from 28.9.1984 and on the same day, the accident took place. The insurer repudiated its liability by maintaining that the policy has been taken, after the accident and therefore, the Company was not liable to indemnify the insured. The High Court took the view that since the accident occurred on the date of policy, the risk should be covered from the previous midnight and hence, fastened the liability on the Insurance Company. On appeal filed by the Company, the Apex Court confirmed the decision. But the said judgment has been overruled by a Larger Bench in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dhabhi AIR 1997 SC 2147 : (1997) 1 SCC 66 : 1997 ACJ 351 (SC). 12. In New India Assurance Co. On appeal filed by the Company, the Apex Court confirmed the decision. But the said judgment has been overruled by a Larger Bench in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dhabhi AIR 1997 SC 2147 : (1997) 1 SCC 66 : 1997 ACJ 351 (SC). 12. In New India Assurance Co. v. Bhagwati Devi (1998) 6 SCC 534 , the accident occurred at 11 a.m., on 17.2.1989. The policy was issued at 4.00 p.m., on the same date. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to be paid by the Company, following two decisions of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal (supra) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dhabhi (supra). Testing the abovesaid decisions, the Apex Court, following larger Bench decisions, which held that when there is a special contract mentioning the time in the policy and it would be operative from that time and not fictionally, from the previous midnight and having regard to the facts of the case, held that, “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.” 13. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chinto Devi (2000) 7 SCC 50 : (2000) 3 MLJ 179 , the accident occurred on 23.2.1987 at 11.30 a.m. According to the Company, the policy was taken at 4 p.m. It was further contention of the Company that the policy commenced at 4.45 p.m. There was some dispute regarding the time of commencement of the policy and the time noted in the Insurance Cover Note. However, holding that New India Assurance Co. However, holding that New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal (supra), can no longer be applied, in the matter of dispute of commencement of the policy, the Supreme remitted the matter back to the Tribunal, for deciding the limited question, regarding the time, as to when the Insurance Policy was issued and also directed to decide the consequential liability, if any, on the Insurance Company. 14. In J. Kajaivani v. K. Sivashankar 2002 ACJ 613, the accident occurred on 8.2.1996 at 4.30 a.m. The policy for the offending vehicle was between 8.2.1995 and 7.2.1996. On the succeeding day, the owner of the vehicle went to the Insurance Company and obtained another policy. The commencement of the policy was from 8.2.1996 at 10.00 a.m. Following the decisions of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dhabhi (supra), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhagawati Devi (supra) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal (supra), at Paragraph 6, this Court held as follows: “6. Therefore, the position has become now well neigh settled. The Court has to look into the contract of insurance to discern whether any particular lime has been specified for commencement or expiry, as the case may be, of the policy of insurance. The copies of the erstwhile policy as well as the present policy have been produced for our perusal, the authenticity of which has not been questioned before us. The erstwhile policy shows that it expired by midnight of 7.2.1996 by specific terms incorporated in the policy. The next policy has clearly indicated that it had commenced only at 10.00 a.m. on 8.2.1996. The interregnum created the void in respect of the vehicle vis-a-vis the insurance company, The unavoidable consequence of it is that the insurance company cannot now be mulcted with the liability in respect of the award granted by the tribunal.” 15. The three decisions of the Apex Court referred to in J. Kajaivani v. K. Sivashankar (supra), extracted from the above judgment, which are as follows: “5. Three decisions have been placed before us. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Ram Dayal and Others (supra), it was held that in the absence of any specific time mentioned in that behalf, the contract of insurance would be operative from the midnight of the day by operation of the provisions of the General Clauses Act , 1 1897. Three decisions have been placed before us. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Ram Dayal and Others (supra), it was held that in the absence of any specific time mentioned in that behalf, the contract of insurance would be operative from the midnight of the day by operation of the provisions of the General Clauses Act , 1 1897. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dhabhi (supra), a three Judges bench of this Court approved the legal position adopted in the said decision. However, learned judges observed thus: “But in view of the special contract mentioned in the insurance policy, namely it would be operative from 4.00 p.m. on 25.10.1983 and the accident had occurred earlier thereto, the insurance coverage would not enable the claimant to seek recovery of the amount from the appellant company.” This question was again considered by another three judge bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Bhagawati Devi (supra) and after following the dictum in the earlier decision that bench has stated thus: “..The principle deduced is thus clear that should there be no contract go 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 lime 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, this, nothing further for us to deliberate upon.” 16. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vedathal (Letter Patent Appeal No. 190 of 1999, dated 12.11.2002), the accident occurred on 25.5.1991 about 2 p.m. The Policy was effective from the Mid Night of 21.5.1991. Both the Claims Tribunal, as well as a learned Single Judge of this Court, took the view that the insurer is liable, on the premise that the insurer had collected the premium on 20.5.1991 and the Policy had also been issued from the said date. The assumption of liability by an insurer was on account of receipt of the premium. On appeal, a Division Bench in the Letter Patents Appeal, at Paragraphs 3 and 4, held as follows: “3. The assumption of liability by an insurer is only after the receipt of the premium. The assumption of liability by an insurer was on account of receipt of the premium. On appeal, a Division Bench in the Letter Patents Appeal, at Paragraphs 3 and 4, held as follows: “3. The assumption of liability by an insurer is only after the receipt of the premium. Neither the Motor Vehicles Act, not the Insurance Act , require that the insurer assume liability the moment the premium is tendered. The policy issued provides for specifying “effective date of commencement of insurance for the purpose of the Actg from..................0‘ Clock on............ to midnight of............” The date of issue of the policy, therefore, is not decisive as to the date of the commencement and the date and time with effect from which the insurer assumes the risk. If no time is mentioned, but a mere date is mentioned, the insurer would be presumed to have assumed the risk from the commencement of the day. If, however, besides specifying the date, the time is also specified. The insurer‘s liability would be only from the date and time specified, arid not earlier. The Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunitha Rathi (1998) 1 SCC 365 has held to that effect. 4. In this case, the date specified in the policy is the effective date of commencement which is subsequent to the date of occurrence of the accident. It was open to the insurer to specify such a date, as to the law does not mandate that the risk should be assumed on the date on which the premium is received. The insurer‘s liability, therefore, can only be regarded as having commenced from the date specified in the policy as the effective date of commencement of the insurance, and not earlier.” 17. In United India Insurance Company v. S. Viswanathan 2003 (2) CTC 72 , the accident occurred on 23.2.1992. The Policy expired on 20.2.1992. Subsequently, a policy was taken on 2.3.1992. The Insurance Company has received the premium on 2.3.1992, with a note that, “received with thanks a sum of Rs. 459 only by cheque No. 822406, drawn in Punjab National Bank, Pennadam, dated 20.2.1992.” The said cheque was handed over only on 2.3.1992 to the Cuddalore Bank and immediately, thereafter the receipt of the cheque, a receipt has been given. The Insurance Company has received the premium on 2.3.1992, with a note that, “received with thanks a sum of Rs. 459 only by cheque No. 822406, drawn in Punjab National Bank, Pennadam, dated 20.2.1992.” The said cheque was handed over only on 2.3.1992 to the Cuddalore Bank and immediately, thereafter the receipt of the cheque, a receipt has been given. Therefore, a contention has been raised by the Company that the policy was effective at from 2.3.1992, 12 p.m. Further, a contention has been raised by the owner that only after realisation of the cheque amount, receipt has been given on 2.3.1992. There was also evidence to that effect that the policy has been issued only after realisation of the amount from the Bank, whereas, the cheque for the policy amount had been handed over, even on 20.2.1992. Considering the discrepancy in the above evidence, the Division Bench held that there was a valid insurance policy on the date of the accident and affirmed the finding of the Tribunal that the owner lone was liable. 18. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Geetha 2004 (1) TNMAC 174 (DB) : (2000) 3 SCC 195 : (2000) 2 MLJ 167 , the accident occurred on 15.6.1998, about 5.30 a.m. The policy was issued on the basis of the premium paid on 12.6.1998, but effective only from 15.6.1998 at 10.00 a.m., to Midnight of 14.6.1999. Having regard to the receipt of premium on 12.6.1998, the Tribunal fastened the liability on the Company. On appeal, though the learned counsel for the claimant therein relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Company v. S. Viswanathan (supra), distinguishing the said case and after considering the binding nature of the contract, as per the insurance under the Contract Act and following the decisions in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vedathal (Letter Patent Appeal No. 190 of 1999, dated 12,11.2002), (supra), National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dhabhi (supra), Oriental Insurance Company v. Sunita Rathi (supra) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rula AIR 2000 SC 1082 : (2000) 3 SCC 195 : (2000) 2 MLJ 167 , this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Geetha (supra), held as follows: “15. Ltd., v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dhabhi (supra), Oriental Insurance Company v. Sunita Rathi (supra) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rula AIR 2000 SC 1082 : (2000) 3 SCC 195 : (2000) 2 MLJ 167 , this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Geetha (supra), held as follows: “15. In view of the above settled principles of law, the appellant-Insurance Company is correct in challenging the award of the Tribunal on the ground that they are not liable as the Insurance policy was issued with the specific mention of the time and date of commencement of the insurance and the accident took place before the said time mentioned in the policy. There is, thus, a basic fallacy in the conclusion reached by the Tribunal on this point.” 19. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Porselvi 2009 (2) TNMAC 161 (SC) : LNIND 2009 SC 766 , the accident occurred on 28.5.1996. The policy cover was for the period from 29.5.1996 to 28.5.1997. Since cover note had been issued on 28.5.1996, which was also entered in Policy, the High Court felt that the finding of the Tribunal, fastening liability on the Insurance Company, cannot be termed as perverse. Being aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company took the matter on appeal to Supreme Court. Though strong reliance has been made on the cover note, dated 28.5.1996, after examining the same and the relevant portion in the policy, “effective date of commencement of insurance for the purpose of the Act, from 0‘ Clock on (date) 29.5.1996 to midnight of 28.5.1997” and following a Three Judges Bench judgment of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sita Bai (Smt.) and Others AIR 1999 SC 3577 : (1999) 7 SCC 575 : (2000) 1 MLJ 50 , the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Porselvi (supra), referred to above set aside the judgment of the High Court. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sita Bai (Smt.) and Others (supra), referred to in the above reported case, is extracted hereunder: “The correctness and applicability of the judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal (supra) came up for consideration before this Court subsequently in a number of cases. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhagwati Devi and Others (supra) - C.A. No. 1550 of 1994, decided on 10.2.1998. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal (supra) came up for consideration before this Court subsequently in a number of cases. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhagwati Devi and Others (supra) - C.A. No. 1550 of 1994, decided on 10.2.1998. a three-Judge Bench of this Court relied upon the view taken in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dhabhi (supra), wherein it had been held that if there is a special contract, mentioning in the policy the time when it was bought, the insurance policy would be operative from that time and not from the previous midnight as was the case in Ram Dayal‘s case, where no time from which the insurance policy was to become effective had been mentioned. It was held that should there be no contract to the contrary, an insurance policy becomes operative from the previous midnight, when bought during the day following; but, in cases where there is a mention of the specific time for the purchase of the policy, then a special contract comes into being and tile policy becomes effective from the time mentioned in the cover note/the policy itself. The judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dhabhi (supra) has been subsequently followed in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi and Others (1998) 1 SCC 365 . by a three-Judge Bench of this Court also.” 20. In Balbir Kaur v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2009 ACJ 1848 : LNIND 2009 SC 835 , the accident took place on 18.3.1996.The company received the premium on 15.3.1996 and issued a cover note with effect from 19.3.1996. The Tribunal, allowed compensation against the Insurance Company. The High Court held that the Insurance Company was not liable and directed the claimant to refund the compensation withdrawn by him, to the Insurance Company. Owner of the vehicle did not file any appeal against the order of the High Court. On appeal filed by the claimant, the Apex Court, at Paragraphs 13 to 15, held as follows: “13. For the purpose of this case, we would assume that an insurance policy, in law, could be issued from a future date. A policy, however, which is issued from a future date must be with the consent of the holder of the policy. The insurance company cannot issue a policy unilaterally from a future date without the consent of the holder of a policy. A policy, however, which is issued from a future date must be with the consent of the holder of the policy. The insurance company cannot issue a policy unilaterally from a future date without the consent of the holder of a policy. Even the said circular letter had not been produced and/or no material was placed as to why the policy was issued from a later date. It is, however, not necessary for us to delve deep into the matter in view of the limited notice issued by this Court. 14. Respondent No. 3, however, owner of the vehicle has not questioned that part of the order passed by the High Court. He, therefore, accepted the judgment of the High Court. Accordingly, liability to pay the awarded amount by him is not in question. 15. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in particular having regard to the fact that the appellants have already withdrawn the amount, the interest of justice would be sub-served if this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India direct the insurance company not to recover the amount from the appellants herein, subject of course to its right of recovery from the owner and the driver of the vehicle.” 21. In National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Sobina lakai 2007 (5) CTC 892 : LNIND 2007 SC 829 : (2008) 1 MLJ 912 , the accident occurred on 20.7.1994 at 9.15 a.m. The vehicle was insured after a lapse of three weeks. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of specific time mentioned in the policy, it would be operative from mid-night of day and not earlier. 22. Reverting back to the case on hand, it could be seen from Exhibits B-1 to B-6, Tractor and Trailer, bearing Registration No. PYT 253 and PY 01 E 8619 respectively, the policies have been issued with effect from 0‘ Clock on 16.1.2001 to Midnight of 15.1.2001. Though the owner of the vehicle, in his counter affidavit, has contended that he has renewed the policy for the Tractor-cum-Trailer, involved in the accident, about 1.30 p.m., before the accident, which occurred at 6.30 p.m., perusal of the insurance policies issued to the Tractor-cum-Trailor, clearly shows that the commencement of the effectiveness of the policies was only from 0‘ Clock on 18.1.2002 to Midnight of 17.1.2003. 23. 23. Though the Receipt date and number is shown as 17.1.2002, in the light of a catena of decisions, stated supra, even assuming that premium had been received, the effectiveness of the policy, commences only from the specified time and date mentioned in the policy of insurance. Apparently, the insured has also not raised any dispute over the commencement of the policy with the Company. 24. In the light of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court, on the aspect as to when a policy of insurance comes into effect, the finding of the Tribunal, fastening liability on the appellant-Insurance Company, to pay compensation, on the ground that the premium has been received on 17.1.2002, cannot be accepted and hence, it is rejected. Consequently, the appellant-Insurance Company has to be exonerated from the payment of compensation to the respondent/claimant and accordingly exonerated. 25. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed and the respondent/claimant is directed to recover the amount quantified by the Tribunal from the owner of the vehicle in the same proceedings. As the amount ordered by this Court is in the deposit of the Claims Tribunal, the appellant-Insurance Company can seek for return. If any application is made, the Claims Tribunal is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders, taking into consideration the directions issued by this Court. No costs. Appeal allowed.