JUDGMENT : Heard. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 01.06.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge-I, Jamshedpur in Compensation Case No.94 of 1998 whereby and whereunder, the learned court below has allowed the claim application of the applicants and awarded compensation of Rs.1,84,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from January, 2004 to the applicants. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 23.09.1998, at about 12:30 p.m. when the deceased Durga Das Biswas was proceeding towards Kharkai Bridge on his scooter, the truck bearing registration no.BR 16G-0360 being driven rashly and negligently dashed the scooter of the deceased Durga Das Biswas. Due to the accident, Durga Das Biswas succumbed to the injuries he received in the said accident and died on the spot. The opposite party-respondent no.3-Kusum Devi is the owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was driven by respondent no.4. The offending vehicle was claimed to have been insured with the appellant-New India Assurance Company. The deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of the accident. His monthly income was Rs.8000/- as an agent of life insurance company and a teacher. The claimants made a claim of Rs.6,00,000/-. In the written statement, the appellant-Insurance Company has pleaded that the truck involved in the accident was insured with its company one day after the alleged accident and further it is submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have any valid driving licence as such, the insured has breached the policy condition. The amount of compensation claimed by the applicants is highly exaggerated and inflated. Hence, it is submitted that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the rival parties the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- Whether the claim application is maintainable in the present form? Whether the claimant has cause of action and right to sue? Whether the alleged accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration no.BR 16G-0360 (Truck) by its driver namely Hiralal in which the husband of the applicant Durga Das Biswas died? Whether the driver of the offending vehicle had valid driving licence at the time of accident? Whether the alleged accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration no.BR 16G-0360 (Truck) by its driver namely Hiralal in which the husband of the applicant Durga Das Biswas died? Whether the driver of the offending vehicle had valid driving licence at the time of accident? Whether the offending vehicle was insured by the O.P. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. at the relevant period? Whether the claimants are entitled to get the amount of compensation as claimed by the Insurance Company and to what extent? 5. In support of its case, the claimants have only examined herself as A.W.1. She has deposed about the accident of her husband Durga Das Biswas which took place on 23.09.1998 at about 12:30 p.m. while going on a scooter at Kharkai bridge. Her husband Durga Das Biswas was hit by a truck bearing registration no.BR 16G-0360 being rashly and negligently driven by the driver of the said truck. At the time of the accident, her husband was aged 45 years and was earning monthly income of Rs.8000/- as L.I.C. agent and a teacher. The opposite party no.2 was the driver of the vehicle and the opposite party no.1 was the owner of the said truck and the opposite party no.3 is the insurer of the said vehicle. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she herself has not seen the occurrence. Beside the oral testimony, the claimant has proved the certified copy of the F.I.R. which was marked as Ext.1, the certified copy of the charge-sheet has been marked as Ext.2 and certified copy of the order sheet dated 01.06.2004 in G.R. No. 1823 of 1998 which was marked as Ext.3. From the side of the opposite parties, two witnesses were examined; O.P.W.1-Ram Nath Ojha is an Assistant in the New India Assurance Company. He has proved the insurance policy certificate that was marked as Ext. A. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the insurance policy certificate was issued on the next day of depositing of money. The money was deposited on 23.09.1998. The risk covered under the insurance policy starts on the day when the money is deposited with the Insurance Company. He has proved the insurance policy certificate that was marked as Ext. A. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the insurance policy certificate was issued on the next day of depositing of money. The money was deposited on 23.09.1998. The risk covered under the insurance policy starts on the day when the money is deposited with the Insurance Company. O.P.W.2-P.K. Gupta is the Divisional Manger in New India Assurance Company Ltd. He has stated that in case of break of insurance, risk cover starts one day after such break and from the date of the insurance, the validity period mentioned in the insurance policy starts. In his cross-examination, he has stated that on looking at Ext. A, it cannot be said that whether there was any break of insurance. 6. Learned Tribunal after considering the evidence, both, oral and documentary in record and in respect of issue no.III held that due to rash and negligent driving of the truck involved in the accident, the said accident took place in which Durga Das Biswas died on the spot and there was no contributory negligence. In respect of issue nos. I and II, the learned Tribunal held that there is cause of action for the applicants for filing the petition and the application filed by the applicants is maintainable. In respect of issue nos. IV, V and VI, the learned Tribunal after considering the fact that the validity of the insurance policy was from 00hrs of 24.09.1998 to 23.09.1999 and the fact that the appellant insurance company admitted that the date of receiving premium of the policy of the vehicle was on 23.09.1998 and after holding that the accident took place on 23.09.1998, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Rula & Ors. reported in 2000 (2) Supreme 158 and observing that the insurance company covers the risk from the date of payment of premium and the responsibility of the owner ends with the payment of premium of the policy, held that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount to the third party-claimants and after assessing the age of the deceased to be 46 years and assessing his annual income to be 20,000/- for the purpose of determination of compensation, awarded a compensation of Rs.1,84,000/- with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum as already indicated above. 7. Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned counsel, appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company submitted that as it has been categorically mentioned in the insurance police certificate marked Ext. A that the effective date of the commencement for the period of the act of the said policy document is from 00hrs from 24.09.1998 to midnight of 23.09.1999 and hence, in view of the clear indication of the time period for which the insurance policy certificate issued, basing upon the fact that premium was received on 23.09.1998 and the accident took place on 12:30 p.m. of 23.03.1998,the learned Tribunal ought not have held that the responsibility of the owner shifts with the payment of premium of the policy to the Insurance Company and ought not have held that the appellant- Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Smt. Sita Bai & Ors. reported in 1999(7) Supreme 637 wherein in the facts and circumstances of that case where the accident took place at 10.00 A.M. on 16.04.1987, proposal for insuring the vehicle in question was made by the owner of the vehicle on 16.4.1987 at 2100 hours. Ltd. versus Smt. Sita Bai & Ors. reported in 1999(7) Supreme 637 wherein in the facts and circumstances of that case where the accident took place at 10.00 A.M. on 16.04.1987, proposal for insuring the vehicle in question was made by the owner of the vehicle on 16.4.1987 at 2100 hours. The cover note was issued by the appellant- Insurance company in respect of that vehicle involved in that case on 16.4.1987 and the insurance policy in that case was later on issued in which also the date of commencement of the insurance policy was recorded as 16.4.1987 (2100 hours) and the High Court in that case opined that the insurance policy dated 16.4.1987 covered the period of the accident also because the policy would be deemed to have commenced at midnight of 15.4.1987 and 16.4.1987. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under in paragraph -5:- “5. … … in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi (Smt) and Others, wherein it has been held that if there is a special contract, mentioning in the policy the time when it was brought, 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 mid-night, when brought during the day following, but, in cases where there is a mention of the specific time for the purchase of the policy, then special contract comes into being and policy becomes affective from the time mentioned in the cover note/ policy itself. … …” and held that the High Court was wrong in burdening the Insurance Company with the liability. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ram Dayal and Others reported in (1990) 2 SCC 680 which decision was also relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ram Dayal and Others reported in (1990) 2 SCC 680 which decision was also relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company next relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Sunita Rathi & Others reported in 1998(1) Supreme 52 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “2. The motor accident occurred on 10th December, 1991 at 2.20 PM. It was only thereafter the same day at 2.55 PM that the insurance policy and the cover note were obtained by the insured, owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. There is express mention in the cover note that the effective date and time of commencement of the insurance for the purpose of the Act was 10th December, 1991 at 2.55 PM. The applicability of the decision in Ram Dayal’s case (supra) has to be considered on these facts. In our opinion the decision of Ram Dayal’s case (supra) is distinguishable and has no application to the facts of this case. The facts of that decision show that the time of issuance of the policy was not mentioned therein and the question, therefore, was of presumption when the date alone was mentioned and not the time at which the insurance was to become effective on that date. In such a situation, it was held in Ram Dayal’s case (supra) that in the absence of any specific time being mentioned, the logical inference to draw was that the insurance became effective from the previous midnight and, therefore, for an accident which took place on the date of the policy, the insurer became liable. There is no such difficulty in the present case in view of the clear finding based on undisputed facts that the accident occurred at 2.20 PM and the cover note was obtained only thereafter at 2.55 PM in which it was expressly mentioned that the effective date and time of commencement of the insurance for the purpose of the Act was 10.12.1991 at 2.55 PM. The reliance on Ram Dayal’s case (supra) by the Tribunal and the High Court was, therefore, mis-placed. We find that in a similar situation, the same view which we have taken, was also the view in M/s. National Insurance Co. The reliance on Ram Dayal’s case (supra) by the Tribunal and the High Court was, therefore, mis-placed. We find that in a similar situation, the same view which we have taken, was also the view in M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt Jikubhai Natuji Dabhi & Others, wherein Ram Dayal’s case (supra) was distinguished on the same basis. 3. It follows that the insurer cannot be held liable on the basis of the above policy in the present case and, therefore, the liability has to be of the owner of the vehicle. However, we find that the High Court, without assigning any reason, has simply assumed that the owner of the vehicle was not liable and that the insurer alone was liable in the present case. This conclusion, reached by the High Court, is clearly erroneous. The liability of the insurer arises only when the liability of the insured has been upheld for the purpose of indemnifying the insured under the contract of insurance. There is, thus, a basic fallacy in the conclusion reached by the High Court on this point. ” (Emphasis Supplied) 10. Learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of New India Assurance Co. vs. Bhagwati Devi and Others reported in (1998) 6 SCC 534 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are minimal. The appellant-insurance company sold a policy at about 4 p.m. on 17.02.1989. Undeniably, it had been bought at a time when an accident pertaining to the vehicle insured had already taken place at about 9 a.m. the same day. The fatal accident occurring thereby gave rise to a claim for damages before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The same was allowed on the strength of the decision of this Court aforementioned, correctness of which has been challenged. The said decision proceeded on the legal fiction that when a policy is taken on a particular date, its effectiveness would start from the commencement of that date which is from the previous midnight. The accident taking place at any time during the day would be covered by the policy. Later a three-member Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. The accident taking place at any time during the day would be covered by the policy. Later a three-member Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi ( (1997) 1 SCC 66 ) has taken the view that when there is a special contract mentioning in the policy the time when it was bought, it would be operative from that time and not fictionally from the previous midnight. In the said case, 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. The law on this aspect has been put to rest by this Court. There is, thus, nothing further for us to deliberate upon. 3. As a result, this appeal is allowed on the basis of the decision of this Court in the Jikubhai case ( (1997) 1 SCC 66 ) in such manner that the claim of the complainant for compensation would stand rejected against the appellant-insurance company but would otherwise remain allowed against the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle. No costs.” 11. Learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Porselvi & Another reported in (2009) 15 SCC 116 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “The factual position is almost undisputed and the only dispute relates to the date of commencement of the policy i.e. the date from which the policy was in operation. The accident took place on 28/5/1996. The policy covers the period from 29/5/1996 to 28/5/1997. The High Court in para 13 of the impugned judgment held as follows:- “As the cover note has already been issued on 28.5.1996 itself, which is also entered in Ex. B1, Policy, the finding of the Tribunal fastening liability on the appellant cannot be termed as perverse. The policy covers the period from 29/5/1996 to 28/5/1997. The High Court in para 13 of the impugned judgment held as follows:- “As the cover note has already been issued on 28.5.1996 itself, which is also entered in Ex. B1, Policy, the finding of the Tribunal fastening liability on the appellant cannot be termed as perverse. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in this appeal. The quantum of compensation has not been disputed by the appellant- Insurance Company. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.” Learned counsel for the appellant brought to our notice the cover note which clearly indicates that the policy was valid from 29/5/1996 to 28/5/1997 though it was issued on 28/5/1996. A copy of the policy was brought on record. Relevant portion thereof reads as follows: “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.” A three Judge Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sita Bai (Smt.) and Ors. [ (1999) 7 SCC 575 ] inter alia observed as follows: “6. The correctness and applicability of the judgment in Ram Dayal case [ (1990) 2 SCC 680 ] came up for consideration before this Court subsequently in a number of cases. In New India Assurance Co. vs. Bhagwati Devi [ (1998) 6 SCC 534 ] a three-Judge Bench of this Court relied upon the view taken in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi [ (1997) 1 SCC 66 ] 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 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 the policy becomes effective from the time mentioned in the cover note/the policy itself. The judgment in Jikubhai case has been subsequently followed in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunita Rathi (1998) 1 SCC 365 by a three-Judge Bench of this Court also.” (Emphasis Supplied) Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the impugned judgment so far as it relates to payment of compensation amount by the appellant-Insurance Company be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2-applicants on the other hand submitted that it being the admitted case of the appellant-Insurance Company that the premium of insurance has been received by the Insurance Company on 23.09.1998, the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the owner of the vehicle will start from 00hrs of 23.09.1998 even though, it has been specifically mentioned in the insurance policy that the time of commencement of the insurance will start from 00hrs of 24.09.1998. Stretching his argument, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that hypothetically even if a policy is issued say on 23rd July of a year on payment of premium with the date of commencement of the insurance policy from say 00hrs of 30th July of that year to midnight of the 29th July of the next year still if accident takes place any time between 00hrs of 23rd July of the year of purchase of the policy to mid night of 29th July of the next year, the Insurance Company will be liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle who purchases the policy. The learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi (Smt) and Others reported in (1997) 1 SCC 66 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :- “Address: Jal Apartment, … Rd. Vile Parle (N), Bombay 5 It is hereby understood and agreed that the renewal premium of Rs. 1307 only under this Policy having been paid on 25.10.1983 and not within the renewal date viz. 14.10.1983 the Insurance by this Policy is suspended from 14.10.1983 (4 p.m.) to 24.10.1983. Further, it is declared and agreed that the cover under this Policy is reinstated and renewed for a further period of twelve months from 25.10.1983 to 24.10.1984 at the premium of Rs. 1307. 2. 14.10.1983 the Insurance by this Policy is suspended from 14.10.1983 (4 p.m.) to 24.10.1983. Further, it is declared and agreed that the cover under this Policy is reinstated and renewed for a further period of twelve months from 25.10.1983 to 24.10.1984 at the premium of Rs. 1307. 2. The tribunal also had recorded, as a fact, that on 25.10.1983 at 4.00 p.m., the contract of renewal had come into force and it would be operative up to 24.10.1984. The tribunal also recorded, as a fact, that the accident had occurred on 25.10.1983 at 11.14 a.m., that is, before the renewal of the contract. Under these circumstances, it would be clear that the accident had occurred when the renewal had not taken effect. 3. This Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal had held that in the absence of any specific time mentioned in that behalf, the contract would be operative from the midnight of the day by operation of provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897. 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. 4. The appeal is accordingly allowed only to the above extent. In respect of any claim against the owner, the respondent is at liberty to have it recovered. No costs.”(Emphasis Supplied) 12. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the judgment of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Porselvi & Another (supra) which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ram Dayal And Others reported in (1990) 2 SCC 680 wherein, the Hon’ble Court has held as under:- “2. The insurer repudiated its liability by maintaining that the policy had been taken after the accident and, therefore, it had no liability to meet the award of compensation against the owner. The Tribunal accepted this stand and rejected that claim against the insurer. The insurer repudiated its liability by maintaining that the policy had been taken after the accident and, therefore, it had no liability to meet the award of compensation against the owner. The Tribunal accepted this stand and rejected that claim against the insurer. In appeal, the High Court took the view relying upon certain decisions that the insurance policy obtained on the date of the accident became operative from the commencement of the date of insurance -- i.e. from the previous midnight and since the accident took place on the date of the policy the insurer became liable. 3. Apart from the judgment under appeal, we find that this view is supported by two judgments of the Madras High Court and an earlier decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Two Division Benches of the Madras High Court have taken the view after discussing the law at length that the policy taken during any part of the day becomes operative from the commencement of that day. Besides these judgments a Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Jaddoo Singh v. Malti Devi supports this view on principle. 4. There is evidence in this case that the vehicle was insured earlier up to August, 31, 1984 and the same was available to be renewed but instead of obtaining renewal, a fresh insurance was taken from September 28, 1984, which is the date of the accident. We are inclined to agree with the view indicated in these decisions that when a policy is taken on a particular date, its effectiveness is from the commencement of the date and, therefore, the High Court, in our opinion, was right in holding that the insurer was liable in terms of the Act to meet the liability of the owner under the award. 5. As pointed out in Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary “Date’ means day, so that where a cover note providing for temporary insurance of a motor car expires 15 days after date of commencement, it runs for the full 15 days after the day on which it was to commence. 6. Similarly it has been stated in Stroud that “a bill of exchange, or note, is of the date expressed on its face, not the time when it is actually issued. 7. 6. Similarly it has been stated in Stroud that “a bill of exchange, or note, is of the date expressed on its face, not the time when it is actually issued. 7. To the same effect is the decision in In re F.B. Warren, where it has been held that a judicial act will be referred to the first moment of the day on which it is done. A payment made by a bankrupt in the morning of a day is, therefore, not made, within Section 45 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1914 before the date of a receiving order made later in the same day.” 13. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Porselvi & Another (supra), in paragraph no.6 of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sita Bai (Smt.) and Ors. ( (1999) 7 SCC 575 ) and the decision of Ram Dayal (supra) were referred and it was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that it was held in the case of Ram Dayal that should there be no contract to the contrary, an insurance policy becomes operative from the previous midnight, when brought 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 the policy becomes effective from the time mentioned in the cover note/the policy itself and as in this case there is no evidence regarding the time for purchase hence, the policy cover note is not a special contract. It is further submitted that as the insurance policy certificate marked as Ext. A is not a special contract; hence, it should be treated to be effective from the 00hrs of 23.09.1998. 14. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after perusal of the record, the only point for determination in this appeal is “Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal?” 15. The admitted facts of the case is that the accident took place on 23.09.1998 at about 12:30 p.m., the premium of the policy was accepted by the Insurance Company on 23.09.1998 but there is no evidence as to what time, the said premium was accepted. The admitted facts of the case is that the accident took place on 23.09.1998 at about 12:30 p.m., the premium of the policy was accepted by the Insurance Company on 23.09.1998 but there is no evidence as to what time, the said premium was accepted. In the insurance policy certificate, it has been specifically mentioned that the time of commencement of policy will start from 00hrs of 24.09.1998 and it will be effective to the midnight of 23.09.1999. The law relating to the facts of this case has been well settled in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Porselvi & Another (supra), to the effect 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 and 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 the policy becomes effective from the time mentioned in the cover note/the policy itself. In view of the settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi (smt) and Others (supra) in paragraph no.3 that a special contract mentioned in the insurance policy is one which contains the specific time for which it would be operative from i.e. the time and sate of commencement of the policy and as in the insurance policy of the instant case, it has been specifically mentioned that the insurance policy will be effective from 00hrs of 24.09.1998 to 23.09.1999, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-claimants that though a special time period has been mentioned in the insurance policy from which it will be effective even then it can be stretched beyond the period which has been mentioned in the insurance policy note merely because the premium was paid sometime before the commencement of the period of insurance policy. Hence, the accident having taken place on 23.09.1998 at about 12:30 p.m. as undisputedly the insurance cover commenced from 00hrs of 24.09.1998, this Court is of the considered view that the Insurance Company cannot be burdened for indemnifying the owner of the vehicle in respect of the payment of the claim amount in this case as the accident took place before the insurance policy became effective but the applicants will be at liberty to realize the said claim amount from the owner of the vehicle-respondent no.3 of this appeal and the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified by directing the owner of the vehicle being the respondent no. 3 of this appeal to pay the compensation amount to the claimants instead of the appellant Insurance Company as directed by the tribunal. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the aforesaid extent only. 16. In view of the modification in the impugned judgment and award of the learned Tribunal, the statutory amount deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company be released in its favour. 17. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the learned Tribunal along with a copy of this Judgment forthwith. 18. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.