JUDGMENT : ANAND PATHAK, J. 1. The present misc. appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant insurance company against the award dated 31.7.2003 passed by Third Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track), Dabra, District Gwalior in Claim Case No. 18 of 2003 wherein award of Rs. 1,46,000 has been passed in favour of the claimant-respondent No. 1. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that due to an accident occurred on 31.10.2000 at about 10.30 a.m., victim Sunny alias San-jay sustained injuries and, therefore, a claim case has been filed for compensation under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988'). 3. The owner of vehicle (Sonalika tractor) bearing engine No. 4095F2FO 1578, chassis No. 00052221546 took the shelter of insurance company on the ground that on 30.10.2000, a cover note was issued by the insurance company and in pursuance to that tractor was insured from 31.10.2000 to 30.10.2001. Because of the fact that cover note indicates the time at 4.40 p.m. from 31.10.2000, therefore, according to counsel for appellant, insurance policy commenced w.e.f. 4.40 p.m. on 31.10.2000 and as the accident/incident happened prior to 4.40 p.m. on 31.10.2000, therefore, it does not entail any liability over the insurance company and, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation in respect of injuries sustained by respondent No. 1/victim. 4. According to the counsel for the appellant insurance company, accident took place at about 10.30 a.m. on 31.10.2000 and insurance policy commenced w.e.f. 4.40 p.m. on 31.10.2000, therefore, insurance company is liable to be exonerated. In support of his contention he referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of J. Kalaivani v. K. Sivashankar, 2002 ACJ 613 (SC). 5. Another argument learned counsel for appellant raises is in respect of breach of policy conditions; as according to him at the time of accident, driver of the vehicle did not carry valid licence and, therefore, order to pay and recover passed by the Tribunal ignores the said aspect and caused illegality. 6. Another ground learned counsel for the appellant raises is in respect of quantum. 6. Another ground learned counsel for the appellant raises is in respect of quantum. According to him, age of the injured was 8 years at the time of accident and, therefore, multiplier to be applied as per the Schedule provided in the Act of 1988 is 15; whereas Tribunal has taken the multiplier of 18, therefore, the calculation was not proper regarding compensation. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-claimant opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that respondent No. 1 suffered grievous injuries and sustained 50 per cent permanent disability in the right leg and considering the expenses incurred, pain and agony and future prospects, the said award of Rs. 1,46,000 is on lower side. He referred to the cross-objection preferred by him vide IA No. 1286 of 2017 along with application under section 5 of Limitation Act vide IA No. 1287 of 2017 and submits that the awarded amount is liable to be enhanced looking to the future prospects of respondent No. 1. He referred to the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. B.S. Prasad, 2012 ACJ 1476 (Karnataka) as well as Zameer Ahamed v. B.R. Narayana Shetty, 2012 ACJ 1322 (Karnataka). 8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (owner and driver) also opposed the prayer made by counsel for the appellant insurance company and submits that there is no question of pay and recover in the present case because once the insurance company has issued a cover note, then it is the responsibility of the insurance company to bear the liability of the contract started then and there only. According to him, owner of the vehicle had paid premium on 30.10.2000 itself and the cover note was issued on 30.10.2000 and, therefore, liability of the insurance company starts from 30.10.2000 itself. He referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dharam Chand, 2010 ACJ 2659 (SC). 9. On the point of breach of policy conditions, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 referred to para 19 of the impugned award and submits that Tribunal has rightly shifted the onus to prove breach of policy condition on to the insurance company. Ltd. v. Dharam Chand, 2010 ACJ 2659 (SC). 9. On the point of breach of policy conditions, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 referred to para 19 of the impugned award and submits that Tribunal has rightly shifted the onus to prove breach of policy condition on to the insurance company. The insurance company came out with the plea regarding breach of policy condition as according to insurance company, driver of the vehicle did not possess valid licence. This allegation was to be proved by the insurance company by adducing cogent evidence in this regard, but by not doing so, Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the insurance company, therefore, once the plea of breach of policy condition has been refuted by the Tribunal then in that condition, no case for pay and recover exists for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 10. Besides that, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 raises argument that along with an application under Order 41, rule 27, Civil Procedure Code (IA No. 1286 of 2017), driving licence of the driver of the vehicle was preferred and the said application is pending consideration. Documents appended with the application categorically establish the fact that driver has valid licence at the time of accident, therefore, according to him, no mileage can be gained by the insurance company on the basis of plea of breach of policy conditions. In support of his contention, he referred to the judgment in the cases of Rukmani v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1999 ACJ 171 (SC); Narcinva V. Kamat v. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins, 1985 ACJ 397 (SC); Babu v. Kacharu, 2000 (3) TAC 199, as well as Sham Kunwar v. Kamal Singh, 2001 ACJ 981 (MP); Mohammed Aynuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2001 ACJ 13 (SC) and Jagdish v. Rajkumar, 2002 ACJ 1124 (MP). He prayed for dismissal of the appeal of the insurance company and prayed that appeal filed by the owner vide MA No. 746 of 2004 be allowed. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. The first question for consideration before this court is; whether insurer, i.e., appellant insurance company is liable to pay compensation in the light of the fact that the cover note specifically denotes the commencement of insurance policy and its coverage w.e.f. 4.40 p.m. on 31.10.2000? 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. The first question for consideration before this court is; whether insurer, i.e., appellant insurance company is liable to pay compensation in the light of the fact that the cover note specifically denotes the commencement of insurance policy and its coverage w.e.f. 4.40 p.m. on 31.10.2000? Before adverting to the legal pronouncement in this regard section 64-VB of Insurance Act, 1938 and its effect is to be seen. The said provision categorically stipulates that no risk is to be assumed unless premium is received in advance: "No insurer shall assume any risk in India in respect of any insurance business on which premium is not ordinarily payable outside India unless and until the premium payable is received by him or is guaranteed to be paid by such person in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed or unless and until deposit of such amount, as may be prescribed, is made in advance in the prescribed manner". It further stipulates that in the case of risk for which premium can be ascertained in advance, the risk may be assumed not earlier than the date on which the premium has been paid by cash or cheque to the insurer. The said provision is further unfolded through explanation-"Where the premium is tendered by postal money order or cheque sent by post, the risk may be assumed on the date on which the money order is booked or the cheque is posted, as the case may be." 13. Considering the contents of section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 (for short 'the 1938 Act') as well as considering the said provisions in relation to relevant provisions of the Act of 1988 which are part of social welfare legislation, as well as judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court as referred to above, the picture emerges regarding liability of the insurance company for compensation. Because considering the said provisions, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2010 ACJ 2659 (SC), has held that insurance must be deemed to have commenced from the time when cheque was received and insurance company is liable to pay compensation, in case accident took place after the receipt of cheque and before issuance of policy. 14. Ltd., 2010 ACJ 2659 (SC), has held that insurance must be deemed to have commenced from the time when cheque was received and insurance company is liable to pay compensation, in case accident took place after the receipt of cheque and before issuance of policy. 14. The Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the matter of Zameer Ahamed v. B.R. Narayana Shetty, 2012 ACJ 1322 (Karnataka), while considering the said aspect has also held that insurance company cannot postpone assumption of liability after receipt of premium on the pretext of verification of vehicle and documents which should be done before receipt of premium. The relevant para reads as follows: "(8)...The coverage of insurance for a motor vehicle would virtually stand on a different footing unlike in other types of contract of insurance. It is mandatory that the third party risk should be covered when a vehicle has to ply in a public place. Insurance company being a State authority doing business of insurance is duty-bound to honour and implement the provisions of law. Section 64-VB declares that the insurer can assume the risk only upon the receipt of premium. Maybe, that in other types of contracts where insurance is sought, the insurer may have the discretion to enter into a contract or not. But in respect of motor vehicles there is no discretion on the part of the insurer. The insurance company has to enter into the contract and issue policy in accordance with law, if proper premium is paid. In the context of the said factual and legal situation, it is to be held that in contract of insurance in respect of motor vehicles, the issuance of policy becomes effective when premium is received. The insurer cannot postpone the assumption of liability after receipt of premium. The necessary verification of vehicle and the documents should be done before receipt of premium. However, under the said pretext the insurer cannot postpone the assumption of risk, other than from the date and time of receipt of premium." 15. Similarly, in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dharam Chand, 2010 ACJ 2659 (SC), the order has been passed on the graceful concession of counsel for the insurance company. The said graceful concession connotes wider ramifications. 16. Similarly, in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dharam Chand, 2010 ACJ 2659 (SC), the order has been passed on the graceful concession of counsel for the insurance company. The said graceful concession connotes wider ramifications. 16. This court cannot ignore the important aspect that the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which govern compensation to third party victims is a piece of benevolent legislation and/or social welfare measure. Therefore, whole controversy has to be seen in that perspective also. 17. Judgment relied upon by counsel for the appellant in respect of renewal of policy wherein policy contains a particular time for becoming effective but in the present case, cover note, Exh. D1, contains the time as 4.40 p.m. and the reference of time is missing in the policy, Exh. D2, therefore, in the present case, it appears that cover note, Exh. D1, contains the time and at that time amount of Rs. 548 has been paid by the insured to the insurer, therefore, from perusal of cover note it is apparent that payment of premium has been received by the insurance company and, therefore, by the effect of section 64-VB of the Insurance Act and section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the victim/injured. 18. Another question for consideration is whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case, breach of policy condition has been proved or not. Perusal of the impugned award reflects that burden was on the insurance company to prove about the breach of policy condition, but neither any document has been submitted, nor any evidence was led including the evidence of transport authority to establish the fact regarding breach of policy conditions by way of non-availability of driving licence of the driver. If the insurance company contends that the driver of the vehicle has no valid licence the burden is on the insurance company to establish it. The burden cannot be discharged by the insurance company in a slipshod manner. 19. This view is supported by judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Narcinva V. Kamat, 1985 ACJ 397 (SC); Rukmani, 1999 ACJ 171 (SC); Mohammed Aynuddin, 2001 ACJ 13 (SC) as well as judgment of this court in the matter of Sham Kunwar, 2001 ACJ 981 (MP). 20. 19. This view is supported by judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Narcinva V. Kamat, 1985 ACJ 397 (SC); Rukmani, 1999 ACJ 171 (SC); Mohammed Aynuddin, 2001 ACJ 13 (SC) as well as judgment of this court in the matter of Sham Kunwar, 2001 ACJ 981 (MP). 20. In view of the said legal pronouncements, it can be safely inferred that the insurance company in the present set of facts could not discharge the liability and, therefore, Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that the case involves the breach of policy conditions and caused illegality. 21. One more aspect that needs consideration is that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the present case have moved an application under Order 41, rule 27, Civil Procedure Code vide IA No. 1286 of 2017 wherein driving licence of the driver of the vehicle has been produced which could not be submitted before the Tribunal due to inadvertence. This fact also assumes importance and negates the claim of the appellant insurance company. 22. Another question for consideration before this court is regarding quantum; the respondent No. 1 has filed a cross-objection under Order 41, rule 22, Civil Procedure Code along with an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act on the ground that at the time of accident respondent No. 1 Sunny alias Sanjay was a minor and, therefore, after attainment of majority, he preferred an application under Order 41, rule 22, Civil Procedure Code which is barred by 225 days. The said objection is not tenable at such belated stage and without going into the legality and maintainability of the application at such belated stage, this court finds that Tribunal has suitably compensated respondent No. 1. Although learned counsel for appellant pressed arguments regarding application of multiplier wherein he contends that instead of multiplier of 18, multiplier of 15 is in accordance with the Schedule appended with the Act of 1988. Even if the multiplier of 15 in the fact situation of the case is applied even then a marginal difference of around Rs. 22,000 would take place which is on the lower side, therefore, while holding that the suitable multiplier in the present case was of 15 and, therefore, amount is reduced under this head from Rs. 1,46,000 to Rs. 1,24,000 approximately but this court increases the amount around Rs. 22,000 would take place which is on the lower side, therefore, while holding that the suitable multiplier in the present case was of 15 and, therefore, amount is reduced under this head from Rs. 1,46,000 to Rs. 1,24,000 approximately but this court increases the amount around Rs. 22,000 under the head of pain and agony, attendant charges, hospitalisation and medicine expenses, etc., cumulatively. 23. Thus, in totality of circumstances, it is inferred that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation instead of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and in absence of any specific evidence (oral as well as documentary), order for pay and recover is liable to be set aside because insurance company could not discharge the burden regarding breach of policy condition in absence of driving licence of the driver. Insurance company did not lead evidence independently to establish breach of policy conditions. 24. Resultantly, appeal filed by the appellant insurance company is hereby dismissed. However, quantum of amount of Rs. 1,46,000 is just and proper and that is to be paid by the insurance company to the claimant, i.e., respondent No. 1. 25. Appeal stands dismissed.