JUDGMENT : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. 1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard and decided finally. 2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant -National Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 30.01.2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bali in MAC Case No. 167/98, whereby, an amount of Rs. 7,64,200/- was awarded to the claimants on account of the death of Madan Lal in the accident which occurred on 17.06.1998. 3. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence brought on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties decided the claim application of the claimants. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident occurred while Madan Lal was traveling towards Falna in a Jeep having registration No. RJ-27-T-0420 which was driven by its driver. The said Jeep dashed with a tree which resulted into Madan Lal's death in the said accident. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that findings of the Tribunal recorded on Issue No. 5 are totally erroneous and in view of the evidence adduced, the same is required to be re-appreciated. Learned counsel further submits that a bare perusal of Ex.-A5/1 shows that there is an over-writing on the date of commencement of the period of policy and the date 19.06.98 has been changed to 17.06.98. He further submits that since the accident occurred on 17.06.98, therefore, just to get compensation in the present case, the date of the commencement of insurance cover note was manipulated from 19.06.98 to 17.06.98. He further submits that in the office copy of the said document Ex.-A5/1, the date is recorded as 19.06.98 only, therefore, it can safely be inferred that at the time of accident, there was no insurance of the vehicle involved in the accident. 6. Mr. Jagdish Vyas, learned counsel for the Insurance Company emphatically submitted that receipt Ex.-A3 issued by the Insurance Company for receiving the amount of premium is also dated 19.06.98. Therefore, there is no question that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured w.e.f. 17.06.98. Learned counsel submits that in the Daily Collection Statement Register produced before the Tribunal, it is very clearly mentioned at Entry No. 760 that the amount received on account of the insurance of the subject vehicle was paid on 19.06.98. Therefore, there is no question that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured w.e.f. 17.06.98. Learned counsel submits that in the Daily Collection Statement Register produced before the Tribunal, it is very clearly mentioned at Entry No. 760 that the amount received on account of the insurance of the subject vehicle was paid on 19.06.98. Therefore, the commencement of insurance policy in no circumstances, could be considered w.e.f. 17.06.98. Learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to the fact that Ex.-A4A is only the proposal form which is not signed by the proposer and even the stamped receipt is also not believable. The document itself was prepared after the accident. He further submits that on the form Ex.-A4A, the cheque number or details are nowhere mentioned or given. The document also does not reflect that the proposal form was accompanied by the cheque given by the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that as per the proposal form, the cheque was received in the office of appellant-insurance company, prior to the date of accident. 7. Learned counsel further submits that when this fact of forgery having been committed in the document was brought to the knowledge of the Competent Authorities of the Insurance Company, an F.I.R. was lodged and appropriate disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the erring officer. The charges framed against the officer who committed forgery were proved and, therefore, he was terminated from the service of the appellant-insurance company. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, on the strength of these documents submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence brought on record and wrongly held that the Jeep No. RJ-27-T-0420 was insured with the appellant-insurance company at the time of accident. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that contract in the present case has not been concluded and in support thereof he has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sobina Iakai (Smt) & Ors. reported in (2007) 7 SCC 786 & Deokar Exports Private Limited vs. New India Assurance Company Limited reported in (2008) 14 SCC 598 . The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgments read as follows:- National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sobina Iakai (Smt) & Ors.:- "18. Ltd. vs. Sobina Iakai (Smt) & Ors. reported in (2007) 7 SCC 786 & Deokar Exports Private Limited vs. New India Assurance Company Limited reported in (2008) 14 SCC 598 . The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgments read as follows:- National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sobina Iakai (Smt) & Ors.:- "18. In J. Kalaivani v K. Sivashankar this Court has reiterated clear enunciation of law. The court observed that it is the obligation of the court to look into the contract of insurance to discern whether any particular time has been specified for commencement or expiry of the policy. A very large number of cases have come to our notice where insurance policies are taken immediately after the accidents to get compensation in a clandestine manner. 19. In order to curb this widespread mischief of getting insurance policies after the accidents, it is absolutely imperative to clearly hold that the effectiveness of the insurance policy would start from the time and date specifically incorporated in the policy and not from an earlier point of time." Deokar Exports Private Limited vs. New India Assurance Company Limited:- "13. A policy of insurance is a contract based on an offer (proposal) and an acceptance. The appellant made a proposal. The respondent accepted the proposal with a modification. Therefore, it was a counter-proposal. The appellant had three choices. The first was to refuse to accept the counterproposal, in which event there would have been no contract. The second was to accept either expressly or impliedly, the counter-proposal of the respondent (that is, the respondent's acceptance with modification) which would result in a concluded contract in terms of the counter-proposal. The third was to make a counter-proposal to the counterproposal of the respondent in which event there would have been no concluded contract unless the respondent agreed to such counter-counter-proposal. But the appellant definitely did not have the fourth choice of propounding a concluded contract with a modification neither proposed nor agreed to by either party. If the appellant did not agree to the policy covering the period 26.8.1988 to 25.8.1989 instead of the period 12.03.1988 to 12.09.1989, the result would never create an insurance contract effective from 30.06.1989 or any other date." 10. If the appellant did not agree to the policy covering the period 26.8.1988 to 25.8.1989 instead of the period 12.03.1988 to 12.09.1989, the result would never create an insurance contract effective from 30.06.1989 or any other date." 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents strongly supported the findings of the Tribunal on Issue No. 5 and submitted that the Tribunal while dealing with the Issue No. 5 has taken into consideration the relevant details and scanned the evidence very closely and minutely. The findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal are based on conclusive evidence showing that the cheque amount towards the premium for insurance of the vehicle was paid well before the date of accident and the same reached the office of the appellant along with the proposal form on 16.06.98. The same has also been admitted by the officer of the insurance company. He, therefore, submits that the cheque was dated 15.06.98 and the same was submitted along with the proposal form, therefore, there was no reason to disbelieve the fact that only proposal form was submitted in the office of the appellant without enclosing the cheque. He further submits that it is the common practice that proposal form is always accompanied by the premium amount in cash or cheque. Learned counsel further contended that as per the proposal form itself, the amount of premium was submitted by the owner by giving cheque dated 15.06.98. 11. Learned counsel while supporting the findings of the Tribunal on Issue No. 3 submits that as far as the over-writing on Ex.-A5/1 is concerned, they are unaware and it has been emphatically submitted before the Tribunal that neither the forgery was committed by them nor any notice on account of such forgery was received for cancellation of their policy. Therefore, as far as the owner and claimants are concerned, their stand is consistent throughout that they tendered the cheque to their agent which reached the office of the appellant on 16.06.98. Once the proposal form along with the amount of premium reached the office of the appellant, there was no reason for the respondents to disbelieve that their vehicle was not insured. Once the proposal form along with the amount of premium reached the office of the appellant, there was no reason for the respondents to disbelieve that their vehicle was not insured. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that in view of the statements of the officer of appellant insurance company, it was proved beyond doubt that proposal form along with cheque amount reached the office of appellant well before the date of accident and therefore, the insurance policy was in currency on the date of accident i.e. from 16.06.98 to 17.06.99. They further submit that the vehicle was very much insured with the appellant's company and therefore, the liability of paying the compensation to the claimants on account of the death of Madan Lal in the accident, completely lies upon the appellant. Learned counsel further submits that issuance of receipt and the entry made in the register has no bearing as the proposal form along with the cheque dated 15.06.98 reached the office of the appellant well before the accident. Learned counsel submits that termination of the officer of the appellant's company will not absolve the appellant from paying the compensation in the present case as the owner of the vehicle tendered the amount of premium along with the proposal form well before the accident and therefore, has discharged his liability. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the detailed findings recorded by the Tribunal no interference is warranted in the judgment and impugned award in the present case. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that though there is an over-writing/correction of date in Ex.-A5/1 but the same was authenticated by making initials and stamping by the officer concerned, therefore the overwriting cannot be taken as forgery in the present case. Nothing has come on record to show that the over-writing was done after the accident. Once the correction done has been authenticated by affixing the stamp of the competent officer, the same cannot be treated to be the case of forgery. 13. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the judgment and award dated 30.01.2003 along with relevant record of the case. 14. The finding of the Tribunal on Issue No. 5 are threadbare, detailed and very well reasoned. The Tribunal minutely examined the evidence brought on record. 13. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the judgment and award dated 30.01.2003 along with relevant record of the case. 14. The finding of the Tribunal on Issue No. 5 are threadbare, detailed and very well reasoned. The Tribunal minutely examined the evidence brought on record. It was held by the Tribunal that once owner of the Jeep submitted the cheque dated 15.06.98 along with the proposal form and the same reached the office on 16.06.98, the burden to pay the premium amount and get the risk covered was duly discharged by the owner of the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle was well within his right to presume that once he had given proposal form along with the cheque amount towards the premium to the agent/officer of the insurance company, the risk was covered. While deciding Issue No. 5, the Tribunal conclusively held that the proposal form reached the office of the appellant on 16.06.98. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that no finding was recorded whether the cheque was accompanying the proposal form or not, it is inferred from the chronology of the events and the evidence brought on record that the cheque dated 15.06.98 had accompanied the proposal form. The common prudence and the practice prevalent is that proposal form is normally not submitted in the office of the insurance company without premium amount either in cash or cheque. In the present case, since the cheque was tendered by the owner of the Jeep on 16.06.98 itself, the same was presented before the Bank and it was encashed. Therefore, for all intent & purposes, this Court feels that the proposal form was duly accompanied by a cheque tendered by the owner of the jeep and this fact was also corroborated from the calculation of the cheque amount made and mentioned on the backside of the margin of proposal form. In any case, there was a stamped receipt on this document Ex.-A4A(proposal) dated 16.06.98 much less there are initials of the officer of the insurance company, therefore, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the fact that proposal form along with the cheque amount did not reach the office of the appellant on 16.06.98. In any case, there was a stamped receipt on this document Ex.-A4A(proposal) dated 16.06.98 much less there are initials of the officer of the insurance company, therefore, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the fact that proposal form along with the cheque amount did not reach the office of the appellant on 16.06.98. This Court also feels that issuance of the receipt and the entry in the register on 19.06.98, cannot nullify the fact that the proposal and cheque reached the office of appellant on 16.06.98. Since the respondent owner was only duty bound to pay the premium amount along with the proposal to the officer of the appellant's company, he, thus, is discharged from his liability and was rightly under the impression that the period of the insurance policy started w.e.f. 16.06.98 itself. The termination of the officer on account of the forgery being committed in Ex.-A5/1 is for the appellant's company to take note of and proceed in accordance with law. 15. As far as the insurance cover note of the vehicle and compensation to the claimants are concerned, the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be washed away on the ground that there is some over-writing on the document Ex.-A5/1. 15. As far as the insurance cover note of the vehicle and compensation to the claimants are concerned, the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be washed away on the ground that there is some over-writing on the document Ex.-A5/1. For better appreciation of the facts, the detailed findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No. 5 are reproduced here for brevity: ^^fook|d la[;k%& 5 ¼14½ bl fook|d dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj vçkFkhZ la[;k 3 ij FkkA vçkFkhZ la[;k 3 us vius ftEes bl fook|d dks lkfcr djus ds fy;s ,uŒ,ŒMCY;wŒ 1 ds :i esa jktsUæ lkseiqjk 'kk[kk çcU/kd us'kuy ba';ksjsal dEiuh 'kk[kk eksM+klk dks ifjf{kr djok;k gSA ftlus vius l'kiFk c;kuksa esa dFku fd;k gS fd okgu la[;k vkjŒtsŒ&27&Vh&0420 dk chek pqUuhyky iq= tlkjke pkS/kjh ds uke ls gekjh chek dEiuh ds eksMklk 'kk[kk esa chek fd;k FkkA ;g chek fnukad 19-6-1978 ls 18-6-1999 rd fd;k gqvk FkkA fdlh okgu dk chek djrs gSa rks igys çiksty QkeZ Hkjk tkrk gSaA çiksty QkeZ çkIr dj ml le; lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh çiksty QkeZ ds Åij le;] rkjh[k vafdr dj gLrk{kj djrs gSaA mlds ckn çiksty QkeZ çkIr dj dSf'k;j ds ikl chek dh çhfe;e tek djus ds fy;sa Hkstrs gSaA dSf'k;j Áheh;e dh jkf'k tek djrk gS vkSj jkf'k çkIr dj mldh jlhn nsrk gSA ftl rkjh[k dks jlhn nsrs gSa mlh le; ls chek çHkkoh gks tkrk gSaA Áheh;e ysus dh o jlhn nsus dh nksuksa dh rkjh[k jlhn ij mlh fnu vafdr djrs gSaA pqUuhyky dk pSd fnukad 15-6-1998 dk tkjh fd;k gqvk gS ysfdu gekjs ikl 19-6-1998 dks çkIr gqvk gSA tks çheh;e ge tek djrs gS mldk jftLVj Hkh j[kk tkrk gS tks vly jftLVj esa lkFk ysdj vk;k gwa tks bZŒ,DlŒ ,&1 gS] ftldh QksVks çfr bZŒ,DlŒ ,&1 gSaA ftlesa pqUuhyky }kjk tks çheh;e dh jkf'k dk pSd fn;k x;k gS mldk bUækt , ls ch gSA blds }kjk 1023@& :i;s dh jkf'k tek djk;h x;h gSA bZŒ,DlŒ ,&2 ikWfylh gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSaA bZŒ,DlŒ 10 jlhn çheh;e jlhn gS ftlesa chek çHkkoh rkjh[k 19-6-1998 ls 18-6-1999 rd gSA gekjs fjdkMZ esa çheh;e dh jlhn bZŒ,DlŒ ,&3 gS mlesa ekdZ lh ls Mh esa dysD'ku rkjh[k esa dkaVNkaV dh gqbZ gSa o ,Dl ekdZ ij lhy yxkdj gLrk{kj fd;s x;s gSA bZŒ,DlŒ 10 esa djsD'ku ugha gSA bl xokg us ;g Hkh crk;k gS fd çLrqr ekeys esa fnukad 16-6-1998 dks çiksty QkeZ bZŒ,DlŒ ,&4 vly gSa ftldh QksVks çfr bZŒ,DlŒ ,&4 gSA bl ij , ls ch esjs iwoZ 'kk[kk çcU/kd ds gLrk{kj gSaA bl çdj.k esa nq?kZVuk ds ckn chek djkus ds ckn çiksty QkeZ iwoZ dh rkjh[k esa ysdj jlhnksa esa dkaVNkaV djus] ikfylh esa Hkh dkaVNkaV dj dqV jpuk djus ds dkj.k iwoZ eSustj ds fo:) gekjs foHkkxh; foftysal esa dk;Zokgh py jgh gSA ftl fnu çheh;e dh jkf'k tek gksrh gS ml le; o rkjh[k ls chek ikfylh çHkkoh gksrh gSaA bl çLrqr ekeys esa fnukad 19-6-1998 dks çheh;e dh jkf'k çkIr gqbZ gS blfy;s 19 rkjh[k ls chek çHkkfor gksxkA nq?kZVukxzLr okgu nq?kZVuk ds fnu gekjh dEiuh esa okgu chfer ugha FkkA ¼15½ çfrijh{k.k esa bl xokg us crk;k gS fd esjh fu;qfDr ikfylh fd;s tkus ds fnu eksMklk czkap esa ugha Fkh blfy;s eq>s O;fDrxr :i ls bl ikfylh ds ckjs esa /;ku ugha gSA çLrqr ikfylh Jh lquhy 'kkg czkUp eSustj ds dk;Zdky ds nkSjku gqbZ FkhA bZŒ,DlŒ ,&5 i‚fylh gekjs eksMklk dk;kZy; ls tkjh dh gqbZ gS ftl ij , ls ch rkRdkyhd 'kk[kk çcU/kd ds gLrk{kj gSaA xokg us bl lq>ko dks lgh crk;k gS fd bZŒ,DlŒ ,&5 ikfylh gekjs dEiuh ds ,tsUV vfer dqekj , 'kkg o MoyiesaV v‚fQlj vkjŒ,Œ 'kkg ds e/;LFkrk ls tkjh gqbZ gSaA xokg us ;g Hkh crk;k gS fd bZŒ,DlŒ ,&3 ij ,Dl lhy o bZŒ,DlŒ ,&5 ij yxh lhys ,d gh gSaA ,Dl] okbZ] tsM+ lhyks ij tks y?kq gLrk{kj o rkjh[k vafdr dh x;h gSa og gekjs iwoZ 'kk[kk çcU/kd ds gLrk{kj o fy[kkoV ls feyrs tqyrs gSaA MoyiesaV v‚fQlj vkjŒ,Œ 'kkg o 'kk[kk çcU/kd lquhy 'kkg gekjh dEiuh ds fu;kstu esa vHkh Hkh gSaA ;g lgh gS fd ikfylh tkjh gksus ds igys doj uksV tkjh gksrk gSA xokg us bl lq>ko dks lgh crk;k gS fd pSd esa vafdr rkjh[k] pSd gekjs dk;kZy; esa çLrqr gksus dh rkjh[k vkSj pSd cSad ls ,suds'ku gksus dh rkjh[k [TRUNCATED] ¼29½ gLrxr Ádj.k esa chek dEiuh bu rF;ksa dks lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgh gS fd mUgksusa chek ikfylh dks mDr vof/k esa fujLr fd;k gksA ;gka rd dh vçkFkhZ la[;k 3 dh vksj ls çLrqr lk{; ls Li"V çekf.kr gqvk gS fd bl vof/k esa vçkFkhZ la[;k 3 us chek/kkjd dks fdlh çdkj dk uksfVl ugha fn;k vkSj u gh ;g çekf.kr fd;k fd ikfylh esa dkaV&NkaV dk —R; ikfylh/kkjd dk jgk gksA chek ikfylh ftl vof/k ds fy;s tkjh dh x;h gS] mlh vof/k rd çHkkoh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa bl eksVj;ku nq?kZVuk esa gqbZ {kfr dh çfrdj vnk;xh ds fy;s chek dEiuh mÙkjnk;h gSA ¼30½ mijksDr foospu o fo'ys"k.k ds vuqlkj eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqapk gwa fd vçkFkhZ la[;k 3 bu rF;ksa dks lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd thi uEcj vkjŒtsŒ&27&Vh&0420 fnukad 17-6-1998 ls chfer ugha gksdj 19-6-1998 ls chfer FkhA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa bl eksVjokgu nq?kZVuk esa gqbZ {kfr dh çfrdj dh vnk;xh gsrq vçkFkhZ la[;k 3 dks ftEesnkj ekurs gq;s fook|d la[;k 5 dk fu.kZ; vçkFkhZ la[;k 3 ds fo:) fd;k tkrk gSA** 16. The officer of the appellant company had admitted before the Tribunal that once the proposal form along with the cheque was received in their office, the risk was covered and in the present case, it was proved beyond doubt that the premium amount in the form of cheque dated 15.06.98 along with the proposal form very well reached the appellant's office on 16.06.98. Therefore, the appellant was under an obligation to pay the compensation to the claimants in the present case. 17. As far as reliance placed upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Deokar Exports Private Limited (Supra) is concerned the facts of the present case are totally different as the insurance cover was not being asked from the retrospective date in the present case and the proposal form itself reached the office of the appellant on 16.06.98, therefore, there is no question of covering the risk of the owner from the retrospective date. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 18. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 18. In view of the detailed discussions made above, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the issues framed vide its judgment and award dated 30.01.2003 are upheld and the appeal being devoid of any force is hereby dismissed. 19. The interim order granted by this Court on 12.04.2004 is vacated. The Insurance Company shall deposit the rest of the amount within a period of four weeks from today. Record of the learned Tribunal be sent back forthwith.