JUDGMENT : R.P. DHOLARIA, J. The present Appeal preferred against judgment and award dated 09.03.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Valsad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1898 of 2002 (old no. 446 of 2001). 2. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - appellant by way of preferring the present Appeal inter-alia contended that the policy of vehicle no. GJ-15 N. 7249 came to be effected from 13.45 p.m on 27.08.2001 to 26.08.2002, whereas, an accident occurred on 27.08.2001 at about 10:00 a.m Consequently, therefore, policy was not effective and not in existence and there was no contractual relation between insured and insurer at the time of accident and no direction could have been issued by the learned Tribunal to deposit the award amount and thereafter, to recover from the owner as such. Precisely, Insurance Company contended that there was no policy in existence and no liability cold have been fastened upon Insurance Company and further the insurance company contend that learned Tribunal while recording the findings, direction was issued to recover said amount from the insured as such. However, in the operative portion, absolute liability is fastened upon them jointly and severally against all of the opponent respondents. Therefore, learned Tribunal committed manifest error while passing the award as such. 3. The brief facts of the case is as under. 4. On 27.08.2001, the appellant was returning to her house from Sarigam at about 10:00 a.m At that time, the defendant no. 1 drove his motorcycle in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the appellant and she died. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Rajni H. Mehta reiterated the grounds urge in the memo of the appeal and contended that liability fastened upon the Insurance Company requires to be set aside, as there was no policy in existence at the time of accident and direction issued by the learned Tribunal requires to be set aside as such. 6. On the other hand learned advocate Mr. 6. On the other hand learned advocate Mr. B.K Oza and A.R Lakhiya appearing for the driver and owner contended that owner has already got insured the aforesaid vehicle in question with the appellant Insurance Company with effect from 27.08.2001, though time for policy become effective is inserted in the policy as 13.45 p.m However, accident took place at about 10 O'clock in the morning on the same day and consequently, therefore, the direction issued by the learned Tribunal to pay and recover is in consonance with law and this Court may not disturb the findings, as in the case of awarding compensation, provisions of law are required to be construed very liberally as such. 7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the records and proceedings, the sole question arises for the determination of this Court is as to whether the motor cycle no. GJ15 N 7249 stood, insured with the appellant Insurance Company on 27.08.2001 at 10:00 a.m covering time of accident or not? 8. On the appreciation of evidence on record, it is clearly emerging that accident occurred at 10:00 a.m on 27.08.2001 whereas the policy as well as proposal form came to be produced vide Exh.37 and 38, clearly disclosed that the policy had become effective on the same date i.e. 27.08.2001 from the 13.45 p.m onwards. Indisputably aforesaid vehicle was not insured with the appellant Insurance Company on the previous year and this was a fresh proposal on the part of the owner to get the insured aforesaid vehicles with the appellant Insurance Company. Consequently, therefore, in view of the clear provisions of section 64 of the Insurance Act, 1938 as well as ratio laid down in the series of decision by this Court as well as Supreme Court of India, in such cases, the risk to be assumed only from the date and time mentioned in the policy. In view of the aforesaid legal as well as factual position at the time of accident, on 27.08.2001 at 10:00 am vehicle in question was not insured with the appellant Insurance Company and there was no policy in existence at that time and consequently, therefore, no liability could be fastened upon the Insurance Company. In view of the aforesaid legal as well as factual position at the time of accident, on 27.08.2001 at 10:00 am vehicle in question was not insured with the appellant Insurance Company and there was no policy in existence at that time and consequently, therefore, no liability could be fastened upon the Insurance Company. Therefore, the direction issued and the liability fastened upon over the appellant by the learned Tribunal in the operative portion of judgment required to be set aside as such. 9. Learned advocate for respective parties have pointed out to this Court that at the stage of admission of this Appeal, 10% of the awarded amount along with interest was directed to be disbursed to the claimant and accordingly, it must have been disbursed to the claimant and rest of 90% of the awarded amount is invested in the Fixed Deposit Receipt requested to be refunded to the Insurance Company as such. This Court makes it clear that so far as 10% amount of compensation disbursed to the claimants should not be recovered from the claimant but rest of the 90% amount lying in the Fixed Deposit Receipt directed to be refunded to the appellant Insurance Company. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed and judgment and award fastening the liability against the present appeal is set aside and out of amount of compensation deposited by the appellant Insurance Company before Tribunal 90% lying in the nature of Fixed Deposit Receipt shall be forthwith refunded to the Insurance Company and already disbursed 10% of the amount of compensation shall not be recovered from the respondent claimant as such. 11. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent and stands disposed of accordingly.