JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Since, common question of facts and law are involved in the aforesaid appeals, hence, they are being disposed off by a common verdict. 2. The Insurer of the offending vehicle is aggrieved, by the fastening, of, the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon it, by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I, Solan, vis-a-vis the compensation amounts, as assessed, under the impugned awards, qua the claimants. 3. The learned counsel appearing, for the insurance company, has contested the affirmative findings rendered, upon, the issue appertaining to the relevant mishap being caused by, the, rash and negligent manner, of driving of tractor, bearing No. PB-20A-3439, by respondent No.3 herein. He contends (i) that with Sanjeev Kumar, one of the claimants, being, at the relevant time, hence astride the apt motorcycle, as, rider thereof, and, his not thereat rather possessing any valid and effective driving licence, for, driving it, (ii) hence, per se, thereupon, it, being concludable qua the relevant mishap which occurred inter se the tractor, and, the motorcycle driven by one Sanjeev Kumar, being a sequel of contributory negligence, on the part of the rider, of the motor cycle, and, of respondent No.3 herein, (ii) and, concomitantly, the apposite indemnificatory liability, being fastenable upon one Sanjeev Kumar, rider of the motor cycle, and, upon, the owner of the tractor, who may, on the principle of vicarious liability, of, Master, for tort of servant, be hence enjoined, to liquidate, an, apt proportion of the compensation amount, vis-a-vis, the claimants. However, the aforesaid submission cannot be accepted, by this Court, (a) as, a vivid display occurs, in the apposite FIR, borne in Ex.PW2/A, qua, the reason, for, occurrence, of, a collision inter se the motor cycle and the tractor, standing, singularly ascribed therein, vis-avis, the rash, and, negligent manner, of driving of tractor, by respondent No.3 herein. However, the aforesaid submission cannot be accepted, by this Court, (a) as, a vivid display occurs, in the apposite FIR, borne in Ex.PW2/A, qua, the reason, for, occurrence, of, a collision inter se the motor cycle and the tractor, standing, singularly ascribed therein, vis-avis, the rash, and, negligent manner, of driving of tractor, by respondent No.3 herein. Even though, the apposite FIR, rather does not constitute, a substantive piece of evidence, and, the Learned MACT concerned, may well, depending upon adduction, of, cogent rebuttal evidence thereto, whereupon, all the displays borne therein, may suffer erosion, hence, make a conclusion, contrary to the one, borne in the apposite FIR, (b) yet the Insurance Company, did not lead into the witness box, any credible ocular witness, to the occurrence, and, his making any apt articulations, for eroding, the worth of the apposite FIR, borne in Ex.PW2/A. The omission of the Insurance company to lead into the witness box, any credible ocular witness,. to the occurrence, and, his making articulations, in support of the Insurance Company''s propagation, rather constrains this Court to conclude, that, the aforesaid contention, is surmisally made, and, is not firmly grooved, in any adduced cogent evidence, in consonance therewith. 4. Furthermore, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, before the learned MACT concerned, for, proving, its propagation qua the rider, of, the motor cycle, not holding, any, valid and effective driving licence, to, hence drive it, hence, per se, thereupon, his being concludable, qua, his not adhering to the standards of due care, and, caution, and, rather his concomitantly contributing, to the accident, (a) did not seek elicitations, from the RTA concerned, qua whether thereat, the apt driving licence, of, Snajeev Kumar, was held in, its, proper custody, or, contrarily, qua it being not held in, its, custody, (b) wherefrom, upon non production, of, the apposite driving licence, from, the custody of the RLA concerned, it, was hence inevitable, to conclude qua, his not, at the relevant time, hence holding any valid and effective, driving licence, to drive the motor cycle concerned, (c) and, concomitantly, it may be concludable qua his not adhering to the standards of due care and caution, besides, it may be concludable of his contributing, to the relevant collision. Omission aforesaid, does constrains this Court to draw a conclusion, qua, the aforesaid plea being sumisally raised. Omission aforesaid, does constrains this Court to draw a conclusion, qua, the aforesaid plea being sumisally raised. More so, when the only suggestion, for, hence eroding the worth of the FIR, as, stands, meted to PW-1, is, qua Sanjeev Kumar, on sighting the tractor, as, driven by respondent No.3 herein, hence his getting perplexed, and, thereupon the motor cycle falling, onto the road, and, thereafter, all the occupants thereof, hence, sustaining injuries on their respective persons. The aforesaid suggestion, when is not supported by any independent evidence, whereas, only on concurring therewith credible ocular evidence being adduced, thereupon alone, the echoings made in Ex.PW2/A, wherein, negligence, is singularly, and, squarely attributed to respondent No.3, rather would stand effaced, (d) thereupon, it is concluded, that the relevant collision which occurred inter se, the, offending vehicle, and, the motor cycle, driven, at the relevant time, by Sanjeev Kumar, being ascribable, vis-a-vis, respondent No.3 herein, hence being rash and negligent in driving the offending vehicle. 5. The learned counsel, appearing for the insurance company, has further made an espousal (a) that the fastening of the indemnificatory liability, upon, the Insurance Company, is, misfounded, as, the insurance policy, exhibited as Ex.RW1/A, makes, clear echoings, therein qua the contract of insurance executed inter se the insurer and the insured , coming into force, from 18.38 Hours on 27.11.2013, and, the contract remaining alive uptil the midnight of 26.11.2014, (b) whereas, with the relevant occurrence, rather occurring on 27.11.2013, at about 1.00 p.m., hence prior to the commencement, of the insurance policy, thereupon, the fastening, of, the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurance company, being legally frail. He places reliance upon a verdict, of, the Hon''ble High Court of Chhattishgarh, rendered in a case titled as Jasvindar Kaur and others v. Nishan Singh and another , (2014) ACJ 2847, (c) with, an expostulation of law, standing embodied therein, qua the indemnificatory liability, of, the the insurer, commencing only from the date, of, issuance, of, the apt policy, (d) thereupon, the aforesaid date mentioned in, the, insurance policy, borne in Ex.RW1/A, alone constituting, the date, whereat, the apt policy hence commenced, (e) whereas, the learned MACT concerned, proceeding to mete credence to Ex. R2, wherein, the date of commencement, of, the policy, stands, reflected to be rather effective, from 27.11.2013, even when therein there occurs no reference, qua the commencement, of, insurance policy, arising, at 18.38 hours on 27.11.2013, rather hence enjoined, the learned Tribunal, to mete credence, only, vis-a-vis, Ex.RW1/A. Thereupon, the meteings, of, credence, vis-a-vis, Ex. R-2, hence openly transgresses, the, apt mandate enshrined in Jasvindar Kaur''s case , wherein, the reckonable date of commencement of the policy, is, only the one disclosed in the insurance policy. 6. However, the aforesaid submission, addressed before this Court by the learned Counsel, appearing for the insurance company, is, impressive, on its facade,yet on tearing apart its veil, it stands anvilled, upon, a piecemeal reading, of, the verdict rendered by the Hon''ble High Court, of, Chhatishgarh, occurring in paragraph of 8.4, of, Jasvinder Kaur''s case , paragraph whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "8.4 The decision of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi , (1998) ACJ 121 (SC), also lays down salutary principle of law that liability of insurer would commence from date of the policy. If any time is mentioned in policy, from that time liability becomes effective and not earlier to that. The coverage of insurance for a motor vehicle would virtually stand on a different footing unlike in other types of contract of insruance. By virtue of section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, it is mandatory that third party risk should be covered when a vehicle has to ply in a public place. Respondent insurer being State authority doing business of insurance is dutybound to honour and implement the provisions of law. Section 64-VB declares that insurer can assume risk only upon receipt of premium. Maybe, that in other types of contracts when insurance is sought, insurer may have discretion to enter into a contract or not. But in respect of motor vehicles there is no discretion left on the part of the respondent insurer. The insurer has to enter into the contract and issue police in accordance with law, if proper premium is paid. In the context of the said factual and legal situation, it is to beheld that in a contract of insurance in respect of motor vehicles issuance of policy becomes effective when premium is received. The insurer cannot postpone the assumption of liability after receipt of premium. In the context of the said factual and legal situation, it is to beheld that in a contract of insurance in respect of motor vehicles issuance of policy becomes effective when premium is received. The insurer cannot postpone the assumption of liability after 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. Otherwise, insurer would be guilt of abetting use of vehicle in a public place without insurance policy." From a perusal of the hereinabove extracted paragraph, it is apparent (a) of the insurance policy becoming effective, upon the insured, defraying premium, vis-a-vis, the insurer, (b) and, the date and time whereat the insurer evidently receives, the contractual premium, it, in contemporaneity thereof, being enjoined, qua apt fastenings, of, the apposite indemnificatory liability(ies), (c) and the mere postponement, by, the insurance company, qua, issuance of the apt insurance policy, and, the issuance hence reflecting rather date(s) and time(s), contrary to the one, whereat, it rather received the contractual premium, being, an, untenable endeavour, on the part of the Insurer, to shed its apposite indemnificatory liability, rather its hence abetting the use, of, the vehicle, in a public place, without, its holding any insurance policy. 7. For determining, whether, within, the mandate of the latter portion, of, paragraph No.8.4 of Jasvinder Kaur''s case , the insurance company (a) had prior to the issuance of Ex.RW1/A, hence evidently received the contractual premium, from the insured, (b) and, hence, the date and time of its receiving, the contractual premium, emphatically carrying creations thereat, of, apt contractual liabilities, inter se, the insured, and, the insurer, and, the date, and, time, of, the subsequenlty issued apt policy, being inconsequential, (c) it is imperative to allude, to the testification rendered by RW1, who in his cross-examination, has, made a clear echoing qua the issuance of the cover note, rather occurring prior to the issuance, of the insurance policy, (d) and, he also acquiesces, to the factum, qua time being consumed, since the issuance of the cover note, and, the subsequent thereto issuance, of the insurance policy. The aforesaid echoings, occurring in the crossexamination of RW-1, clearly establishes, (e) the factum qua prior to the issuance of, the, insurance policy, a cover note, preceding wherewith, a, proposal form signed by the insurer, both being hence issued by the insurance company, (f) wherefrom, it is inevitable to conclude, unless, the Insurance company, at the time of issuance of cover note, with respect to the offending vehicle, had evidently bonafidely issued it, without its thereat receiving, the contractual premium, evidence whereof, is amiss, (g) qua thereupon rather, with, the date and time, of, issuance of cover note, evidently occurring, prior to the time, and, date, of, issuance of the insurance policy, (h) concomitantly, hence begetting also a befitting conclusion, qua, preceding, the, issuance of cover note, a, proposal form being filled by the insured, and, in contemporaneity therewith, the, contractual premium being liquidated by the insured to the insurer, (i) wherefrom it is further befitting to conclude qua within the ambit, of the latter portion, of the paragraph No.8.4, borne in Jaswinder Kaur''s case supra , the owner of the offending vehicle, rather firmly establishing (j) qua the issuance, of, insurance policy, being, preceded by issuance, of, a cover note, and, prior wherewith, the insured also filling the nomination form, and, thereat the apt contractual premium, standing, liquidated, vis-a-vis, the insurer. Consequently, the contractual obligations inter se the insured, and, the insurer rather arose thereat, and, not at the date, and, time mentioned in the subsequent thereto issued apt insurance policy. Furthermore, the postponement, of, the issuance of the insurance policy, by the insurer, with depictions, qua, its commencement occurring from 18.38 hours, of, 27.11.2013, and, whereas the relevant occurrence taking place subsequent thereto, rather is visibly recorded in sheer contradictions, vis-a-vis the time and date, as, reflected in the prior thereto, cover note, issued by the insurance company, and, whereat, the, liquidation of the contractual premium, hence occurred. In aftermath, the date and time, whereat the cover note stood issued, is, the only apt recknonable time and date, and, with the relevant occurrence taking place subsequent thereto, hence, within, the ambit, of, the verdict rendered in Jaswinder Kaur''s case , the apt indemnificatory liability, is, aptly fastened upon the insurer. More so, when the insurance company, despite holding the apt records, for, scuttling the aforesaid inference, omitted to produce them, before the learned Tribunal. More so, when the insurance company, despite holding the apt records, for, scuttling the aforesaid inference, omitted to produce them, before the learned Tribunal. Consequently, the submission aforesaid, of the learned counsel appearing, for the insurer, has no force, and, it is rejected. 8. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned tribunal are based upon a proper and mature appreciation of the relevant evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned tribunal has not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. 9. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant appeals and they are accordingly dismissed. The impugned awards are maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.