Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral) This appeal is directed against the award dated 7th July, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MAC Case No. 28 of 2005, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,07,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, was awarded in favour of the claimant-respondent No. 1 herein and against the insurer-appellant herein, (for short, “the impugned award”), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The claimant, insured-owner, driver and other respondent i.e. M/s Ashoka Layland through Managing Director, have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them. 3. Only, the insurer-Insurance Company has questioned the impugned award on the ground that insurance policy was not subsisting on the date of accident. Thus, the only issue raised in this appeal is – whether the insurance policy was subsisting on the date of accident? 4. In order to determine the said issue, it is necessary to give brief facts of the case herein. 5. The claimant, had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition on the ground that driver, namely, Sanjeev Kumar, had driven the vehicle-Tipper bearing registration No. HP-69-0309, on 04.11.2004, at about 7.45 a.m., near A.C.C. Factory, Barmana, District Bilaspur, rashly and negligently, hit Virender Singh, who was standing outside his vehicle, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 6. The respondents contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 7. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether Shri Virender Singh had died on account of rash and negligent driving of Tipper No. HP-69-0309 which was being driven by respondent no. 2, Sanjeev Kumar, as alleged? …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? …OPP 3. Whether respondent No. 2 Sanjeev Kumar, the driver of Tipper No. HP-69- 0309, was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so, its effect? …OPR-3 4. …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? …OPP 3. Whether respondent No. 2 Sanjeev Kumar, the driver of Tipper No. HP-69- 0309, was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so, its effect? …OPR-3 4. Whether the respondent No. 2 Sanjeev Kumar was plying the offending vehicle without the insurance policy, if so, its effect? …OPR-3 5. Relief.” 8. Parties have led evidence. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, passed the impugned award, whereby a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,07,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum was awarded in favour of the claimant and liability was fastened upon the insurer. 9. The parties have not disputed the findings on issues No. 1 & 3. Accordingly, the findings returned on these issues are upheld. 10. The issue raised in this appeal revolves around issues No. 2 and 4, are interlinked. 11. The Tribunal has made discussion and held that the insurance policy was subsisting on the date of accident, while deciding Issues No. 2 & 4. 12. The Tribunal has held that the amount of premium was paid for 12 months and as per page No. 20 of the book of Motor Insurance Law and Practice, if the premium is paid annually, the insurance policy shall remain in force for a period of 12 months and in case premium is paid for less than one year, the short period scale will apply. In this case, premium was paid for one year and the insurance policy was existing on the date of accident. In this case, premium was paid for one year and the insurance policy was existing on the date of accident. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of para-10 of the impugned award herein:- “Now bearing in mind the extract as contained in page 20 of the book of Motor Insurance Law and Practice, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereinafter and on whose reading, it emerges that premiums are chargeable on an annual basis, but, the insurance cover can be availed of for any duration of less than 12 months, when short period scale will apply, obviously in the face of the fact, that, the normal rule for the currency of the Motor Vehicle insurance policy would be a period of 12 months and for policy to fall within the exception, as, contained hereinafter extracted portion of the book, as, titled above, envisaging in what eventuality the period of policy shall construe to be lesser than 12 months, then obviously the burden of proving the exception lay upon the learned counsel for the insurance, however, he has failed to discharge the burden. Consequently, an adverse inference has to be drawn against him for failing to discharge the onus, of, the insurance cover falling out side the normal rule of duration of an Insurance Policy known, to, resultantly, as also, its falling within the domain of the exception to the normal rule, resultantly the normal rule for operation or the currency of the Insurance Policy, being, on an annual basis, is to be taken to be one which is to be applied to the insurance cover, as, issued with respect to the offending vehicle. Resultantly, while disagreeing with the contention of the learned counsel for the insurer that when there is no limit prescribed for the currency of or the duration of the policy and that accordingly, it has been to be construed to be for a period of 11 months policy, in, the light of the above discussion is of no worth, accordingly, the liability to pay the compensation is borne by the insurer. “Minimum Premium: With effect from 1st April, 1981. Insurers in India charge a minimum premium of Rs. 30/-, under a Motor Policy issued by them. “Minimum Premium: With effect from 1st April, 1981. Insurers in India charge a minimum premium of Rs. 30/-, under a Motor Policy issued by them. Premiums are chargeable on an annual basis, but the insurance cover can be availed of for any duration of less than 12 months when Short period Scale will apply. It is not possible to extent on piecemeal basis, a Policy taken for a short period by remitting the difference between the short period and annual premium.” Both these issues are decided accordingly.” 13. I have gone through the record. The insurance policy, Ext. RW-4/B is on the record, which provides that insurance policy was valid w.e.f. 3rd November, 2003 to midnight of 2nd November, 2004. This document further provides that the policy was effective from 3rd December, 2003 instead of 3rd November, 2003 and the rectification was made on the request of the claimant. Ext. RW-4/B is not in dispute. Premium has also been paid. It is also admitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that annual premium has been paid. Thus, the insurance policy was to expire on 2nd December, 2004. 14. Learned Counsel for the appellant-insurer has also produced book on “India Motor Tariff". GR.11 at page No. 5 of the said book provides period of insurance, which reads as under: “G.R. 11 Period of Insurance. Unless specifically stated otherwise, premiums quoted in the Schedules under various Sections of the India Motor Tariff are the premiums payable on policies issued or renewed for a period of twelve months. No policy is permitted to be issued or renewed for any period longer than twelve months. It shall, however, be permissible to extend the period of insurance under the policy for any period less than twelve months, for the purpose of arriving at a particular renewal date or for any other reasons convenient to the insured, by payment of extra premium calculated on prorata basis. Provided such policies are renewed with the same insurer immediately after the expiry of such an extension. All such extensions will require attachment of the following Warranty to the policy. Provided such policies are renewed with the same insurer immediately after the expiry of such an extension. All such extensions will require attachment of the following Warranty to the policy. “In consideration of the premium for this extension being calculated at a pro-rata proportion of the annual premium, it is hereby declared and agreed by the insured that upon expiry of this extension, this policy shall be renewed for a period of twelve months, failing which the difference between the extension premium now paid on pro rata basis and the premium at short period rate shall become payable by the insured.” 15. While applying the test, the expiry date of the insurance policy was 2nd December, 2004 and not 2nd November, 2004. 16. The vehicle was purchased on 15th November, 2003, vide bill Ext. RW-1/A. Thus, keeping in view Ext. RW-1/A and Ext. RW-4/B, the mistake had crept-in while recording the date of commencement of the policy and the expiry date. The insurance policy was valid upto 2nd December, 2004, the accident had occurred on 4th November, 2004 and the policy was in force. Viewed thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the insurance policy was subsisting. 17. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly made discussion and saddled the insurance company with the liability. 18. Accordingly, no interference is required. The impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 19. The Registry is directed to release the compensation amount in favour of the claimant, strictly as per the terms and conditions, contained in the impugned award. 20. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the file of the claim petition.