JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. M.T.M. Hakim appearing with Mr. M.M. Hakim for the appellant, learned Advocate Mr. V.C. Thomas as well as Mr. B.D. Karia for the concerned respondent/s. Respondent No. 1 though served has remained absent. Perused the record. 2. The appellant herein is original opponent No. 2 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Vadodara in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 2443 of 2000 as owner of the vehicle involved in the accident whereas respondent No. 1 is his driver and respondent No. 2 is insurer of such vehicle whereas respondent No. 3 is original claimant. 3. The injured claimant had met with an accident on 9-2-2000 when Mini Luxury Bus No. GJ-6V-9988 owned by the appellant, driven by respondent No. 1 and insured by respondent No. 2 had dashed him and thrown him off "the road. Thereby, the claimant was pedestrian and thus, 3rd party, and hence, considering the principle of res ipsa loquitur when bus had dashed with the pedestrian, claimant is entitled to compensation. Therefore, claimant has preferred an application before the Tribunal under Sec. 166 of the M.V. Act claiming Rs. 8,00,000/- towards compensation, against driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle. In such claim petition, the Tribunal has after allowing both the sides to adduce their evidence and after considering rival submissions and evidence on record, by impugned judgment and award dated 3-3-2017, awarded an amount of Rs. 4,57,681/- as compensation to be paid only by driver and owner of the vehicle i.e. present respondent No. 1 and appellant herein respectively, and thereby, Tribunal has exonerated the liability of the Insurance Company. 4. Being aggrieved by such award fixing personal liability of driver and owner, the owner of the vehicle has preferred this appeal. 5. If we peruse the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has observed in Para 33 that on the date of accident vehicle was not insured with the Insurance Company being opponent No. 3 before it. For the purpose, Tribunal has referred Exh. 42 and recorded that vehicle was not insured on the date of accident. This is unfortunate part of the entire proceeding inasmuch as, it is undisputed fact that accident took place on 9-2-2000 and insured policy at Exh. 42 specifically confirms that the insurance is commencing from 9-2-2000 and is effective till 8-2-2001. The Exh. 42 and recorded that vehicle was not insured on the date of accident. This is unfortunate part of the entire proceeding inasmuch as, it is undisputed fact that accident took place on 9-2-2000 and insured policy at Exh. 42 specifically confirms that the insurance is commencing from 9-2-2000 and is effective till 8-2-2001. The Exh. 42 also categorically discloses that the period of insurance starts from 00-00 hours of 9-2-2000 and such policy was prepared on 14-2-2000. Whereas, amount of premium is received by the Insurance Company on 11-2-2000. However, though such dates look to be attractive to exonerate the liability of Insurance Company, the fact remains that when Insurance Company has received amount of premium on 11-2-2000 and when prepared policy on 14-2-2000, they have all the scope to prepare the policy effective from particular date and time but they deem it fit to effect the policy from 00-00 hours of 9-2-2000, and therefore, unless there is an evidence on record that the period or date of starting point of the policy is not proper, Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from its liability when such document is in existence which is contractual legal document. It is also clear that even in that case, the Insurance Company has to come forward with a specific evidence to that effect and that too with prior intimation to the owner of the vehicle for change of any information in such deed of contract so as to correct it if at all there is any mistake. The Exh. 42 is produced with list at Exh. 18 on 5-10-2016 at Sr. No. 18. However, copy of same document was already produced on record as back as on 20-12-2000 with list at Exh. 5 at Sr. No. 4. Such copy of policy at mark 5/4 is on page No. 40 in the R. & P. of the trial Court whereas copy of same document produced at mark 18/18 as Exh. No. 18. However, copy of same document was already produced on record as back as on 20-12-2000 with list at Exh. 5 at Sr. No. 4. Such copy of policy at mark 5/4 is on page No. 40 in the R. & P. of the trial Court whereas copy of same document produced at mark 18/18 as Exh. 42 is on page No. 162 of the R. & P. The perusal of this document specifically confirms that it is the copy of the original policy for the period between 9-2-2000 till 8-2-2001 and when starting period of such policy is specifically disclosed as 00-00 hours, it becomes clear that the policy is in existence at the time of accident, and therefore, Insurance Company is certainly liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle by making payment of compensation to the injured victim. Therefore, it becomes clear that without assigning any reason to discard such policy and on the contrary even after referring such policy, the Tribunal has recorded that "referring to the Insurance Company at Exh. 42 it is clear that at the relevant time such vehicle was not insured with respondent No. 3-Insurance Company which was effective whereas the date of accident is 9-2-2000." Unfortunately, Tribunal has relied upon one statement in deposition of the claimant at Exh. 16 when in cross-examination, he has admitted that his application for interim compensation under No Fault Liability has been dismissed for want of effective insurance policy. 6. Therefore, though prima facie Insurance Company is certainly liable to indemnify the owner, considering the determination by Tribunal regarding insurance policy, the respondent-Insurance Company herein has tried to explain to the Court that policy was issued and made effective only on 17-15 hours of 9-2-2000 and not at 00-00 hours of 9-2-2000. Though such plea is against the documentary evidence available on record, unfortunately, an attempt was made by the Insurance Company to prove that policy was not in force. For the purpose, at Exh. 21, Divisional Manager namely Mr. N.T. Gondalia has filed affidavit and annexed photocopy of previous policy of the vehicle submitting that on such previous policy, there is endorsement that new policy is issued on 17-15 hours on 9-2-2000, and therefore, it is to be believed. For the purpose, at Exh. 21, Divisional Manager namely Mr. N.T. Gondalia has filed affidavit and annexed photocopy of previous policy of the vehicle submitting that on such previous policy, there is endorsement that new policy is issued on 17-15 hours on 9-2-2000, and therefore, it is to be believed. Unfortunately, both; the Insurance Company and the Tribunal has failed to realize that irrespective of such document, which is inadmissible in evidence as such when copy of original document is already produced on record and when Insurance Company did not dare to produce the original policy which is issued by them; copy of which is produced on record at mark 5/4 as well as 18/18 i.e. Exh. 42. Unfortunately, even the copy of previous policy, the endorsement thereon regarding calculation of premium for the next year and period of insurance for the next year, nowhere discloses that at what time premium has been received. The Insurance Company has relied upon two rubber stamps on such document. Referring to such stamp, it becomes clear that in both such inward stamp, there is overwriting so far as date is concerned and at least one of such stamp, it is clearly visible that the figure 8 is tried to be converted into 9. Therefore, by all means, when there is overwriting in inward stamp, and thereby, when date 8 is tried to be changed to 9, there is substance in the submission by the appellant that in-fact they have already given Cheque No. 527626 drawn upon their account with Union Bank of India at Vadodara Branch on 8-2-2000 itself and inward stamp on previous policy is though reading 8-2-2000 and though there is date endorsed for the period of policy as 9-2-2000 to 8-2-2001, and thereby, when premium is paid on previous day, policy would certainly starts from 00-00 hours from the next date. The Officer of the Insurance Company has made an attempt to misguide the Court. In-fact for such attempt, such officer needs to be prosecuted for perjury. 7. However, as already stated hereinabove when policy is already issued for the period between 9-2-2000 and 8-2-2001, reference to previous policy or endorsement upon it are not much material; so also endorsement regarding time of previous policy are irrelevant and original policy or photo copy of policy effective from 9-2-2000 is only relevant document to be relied upon. 7. However, as already stated hereinabove when policy is already issued for the period between 9-2-2000 and 8-2-2001, reference to previous policy or endorsement upon it are not much material; so also endorsement regarding time of previous policy are irrelevant and original policy or photo copy of policy effective from 9-2-2000 is only relevant document to be relied upon. Unfortunately, Insurance Company neither dare to produce such document nor dare to plead or prove that the disclosure of 00-00 hours on such document at Exh. 42 is not proper. 8. As aforesaid, even if it is pleaded, there must be intimation in advance to the claimant regarding change in period of policy and in absence of any evidence to that effect, such plea cannot be relied upon by the Tribunal while dismissing the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the 3rd party. Therefore, there is substance in the appeal. so as to modify the award and to fix the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the original claimant. 9. In support of their submission, the appellant has relied and referred following decisions: * New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal, reported in 1990 (2) SCC 680 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held 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. Such judgment has been interpreted in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi, reported in 1996 (8) Supp. SCR 929, wherein, it is observed that in the absence of any specific time mentioned in that behalf, the contract would be operative from the mid-night of the day by operation of provisions of the General Clauses Act. Similarly in Krishna Subbarao Naik v. Palani Swamy, reported in AIR 1998 Karnataka 214, the Karnataka High Court has held that the insurance policy obtained on the date of accident becomes operative from the commencement of the day of obtaining insurance i.e. from the previous night and since the accident had taken place on the date of policy the insurer was liable. Whereas Full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Whereas Full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhagwati Devi, reported in 1998 (6) SCC 534 endorsing the view in the case of Ram Dayal (supra) 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. However, in case there is mention of a specific time for its purpose then a special contract to the contrary comes into operation and the policy would be effective from the mentioned time. The law on this aspect has been put to rest by this Court. * National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Abhesing Pratapsing Waghela, reported in 2006 (3) GLH 173 wherein Division Bench of this High Court has upheld the order of Tribunal holding the Insurance Company jointly and severally liable when cheque for the amount of premium was accepted by Insurance Company on 23-1-1995 and though policy was issued on 30-1-1995 confirming that liability of the company begins on 23-1-1995 itself, further confirming that the liability of the policy already insured can be avoided, only by following the procedure under Sec. 147(4) of the Act. * J. Kalaivani v. K. Sivashankar, reported in 2007 (7) SCC 792 wherein the decision of Full Bench in Bhagwati Devi (supra) has been followed. 10. Thus, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once certificate of insurance or insurance policy is issued in terms of Sec. 143(1)(b), it remains valid till it is cancelled. Therefore, when policy is not cancelled in the present case, even when it was so pleaded before the Tribunal and when there is no step taken by the Insurance Company to confirm that there is any error in the insurance policy, therefore, plea and evidence contrary to the information disclosed in the agreed contract in the form of policy which is statutory in nature, and therefore, they cannot be allowed to say that they are not liable to pay compensation. 11. 11. It cannot be ignored that pursuant to provision of Sec. 147(4) of the Act, if any policy is to be cancelled, the Insurance Company has to intimate the registering authority in whose records the vehicle has been registered i.e. R.T.O. Therefore, in absence of any such evidence, it is to be believed that Insurance Company has made an attempt to misguide the Court without following proper procedure as prescribed under the law and without disclosing the correct position. 12. Interestingly, one more factual detail is in support of the appellant, inasmuch as the other injured of the same accident had been died, and therefore, his legal heirs who are residing in Madhya Pradesh have preferred claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of Satna in Madhya Pradesh. Such Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 149 of 2005 has been allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of Satna by its judgment and order dated 1-2-2012 wherein the Tribunal has held the Insurance Company liable to indemnify the owner though similar pleading and evidence was produced before the Tribunal. Therefore, when such Tribunal has already considered the writing in particular document for fixing the liability of the Insurance Company, I endorse such observation and findings by Tribunal at Satna (M.P.) to fix the liability of the Insurance Company. The relevant Paragraph numbers in such judgment are 8 to 12. Copy of such judgment is on record of the appeal at Annexure 'C'. 13. Though learned Advocate for the appellant has stated that such judgment of the Tribunal at Satna is challenged before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the pendency of appeal before the M.P. High Court would in any case, not restrict this Court to decide present appeal in accordance with law and more particularly, when discussion hereinabove makes it clear that irrespective of pleading and evidence by respondent-Insurance "Company with reference to the endorsement on copy of previous policy, when effective policy has already been issued and produced on record disclosing that insurance starts from 00-00 hours of 9-2-2000 and is effective till 8-2-2001, there is no reason to keep such matters pending. It is sufficient, if we are not issuing notice of perjury to the officers of the Insurance Company for filing false and fabricated documents on record and false evidence on oath before the Court. 14. It is sufficient, if we are not issuing notice of perjury to the officers of the Insurance Company for filing false and fabricated documents on record and false evidence on oath before the Court. 14. In view of above, the appeal is allowed whereby the impugned award is modified so as to make it clear that Insurance Company is equally liable to pay compensation by indemnifying the owner, and therefore, liability of all the opponents are joint and several. 15. Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that pursuant to order 17-4-2018 when this Court has directed the appellant to deposit the amount of award, the appellant has deposited the awarded amount before the Tribunal, and therefore, such amount needs to be refunded to the appellant. 16. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the Registry shall refund the amount if any deposited by the appellant, after expiry of period of appeal against present judgment, if no effective order is received from the competent Court so as to restrict the Registry to refund the amount as aforesaid. The respondent No. 2-Insurance Company is hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount within 12 weeks with full interest from the date of application till its payment with cost before the Tribunal. As and when such amount is deposited, the Tribunal shall disburse it in accordance with direction in the award. 17. R. & P., if any, be sent back to the Tribunal at the earliest. Direct Service is permitted. 18. In view of disposal of main matter, connected Civil Application does not survive, and hence, the same stands disposed of.