JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) by the appellant-United India Insurance Company, challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru (for short “the Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P.No.416 of 2003, dt.08.11.2006. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts in brief of the case are as follows: a) On 24.04.1998 at about 2.45 p.m., the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 1395, which is a shuttle service between Rajahmundry and Eluru, driven by its driver namely J.Srinivasa Rao, when reached the outskirts of Dommeru Village, a lorry bearing No.ABP 9119 driven by its driver i.e., the 1st respondent, at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, came in opposite direction and dashed the RTC bus, as a result, the driver and conductor of the RTC bus and some of the passengers who were in the bus sustained injuries. The incident was reported to the Police alleging that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry and based on the FIR lodged by the V.A.O., Dommeru Village, a case in Crime No.47 of 1998 was registered by I Town Police, Kovvuru for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC and the matter was investigated. Due to the above accident, the Mechanical Department of APSRTC took the damaged bus to the Depot, estimated the cost of damages, and prepared a report. b) It is due to the above accident, a claim petition was filed by the APSRTC for Rs.46,100/- towards compensation for the damages caused to the said bus, against the driver, owner, and insurer of the offending vehicle i.e., Respondents 1 to 3 respectively. c) The 1st & 2nd respondents who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the matter. d) The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company filed a written statement denying the claim of the petitioner/APSRTC and further contended that the driver of the offending lorry was not holding a valid licence. It is further contended that the offending lorry bearing No.ABP 9119 was not having a valid road permit and fitness certificate. d) The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company filed a written statement denying the claim of the petitioner/APSRTC and further contended that the driver of the offending lorry was not holding a valid licence. It is further contended that the offending lorry bearing No.ABP 9119 was not having a valid road permit and fitness certificate. Further, it was contended that the claim of the petitioner is excessive and the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation, and the quantum of the claim was also disputed as excessive. e) Based on the above pleadings, the Claims Tribunal framed the following issues: 1) Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.ABP 9119 by its driver 1st respondent? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation if so, to what amount and against which of the respondent? 3) To what relief? f) To substantiate their respective cases, on behalf of the petitioner, the Superintendent (Mechanical), Kovvuru Division of APSRTC was examined as P.W.1, and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. On behalf of the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company, one P.Phani Kumar, Assistant Administrative Officer of United India Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1, and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked. g) The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs.26,900/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by the Respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. h) Feeling aggrieved by the award, the appellant/United India Insurance Company Limited preferred this appeal before this Court stating that the Tribunal erred in fixing the compensation @ Rs.26,900/- as against the claim of Rs.46,100/-. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that, on the date and time of the accident i.e., 24.04.1998 at 2.45 p.m., there was no privity of contract between the owner of the offending vehicle and the Insurance Company. It is further contended that the Tribunal failed to take the notice of the fact that there was no policy at the time of the accident. Further, it is contended that the Insurance Company had issued notice to the owner of the offending vehicle under Ex.B.2 with a request to produce all vehicular documents along with the claim forms and copy of the Insurance Policy. Further, it is contended that the Insurance Company had issued notice to the owner of the offending vehicle under Ex.B.2 with a request to produce all vehicular documents along with the claim forms and copy of the Insurance Policy. Having received the said notice, the owner of the vehicle did not come forward to produce the documents and the said insurance policy expired on 14.04.1998. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation, and considering the above aspects, he prayed to exonerate the Insurance Company from its liability to pay the compensation and the owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation. 5. The learned counsel for the APSRTC would submit that the offending vehicle had a valid insurance policy on 24.04.1998. It is further contended that the Insurance Company failed to produce the policy particulars before the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded compensation without considering the loss of earnings of the RTC bus during the period from 24.04.1998 to 12.05.1998 and the said bus was in the shed for repairs and was off the road. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal needs interference by this Court directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation as claimed by the APSRTC. 6. Based on the above pleadings the point for consideration in this appeal is, “Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding responsible the Appellant/Insurance Company for paying compensation for and on behalf of the owner of the offending vehicle the lorry bearing No.ABP 9119, even in the absence of a contract of insurance on the date of the accident? 7. POINT: The undisputed facts of the case are that on 24.04.1998 at about 2.45 p.m., the accident occurred. The offending vehicle was driven by the 1st respondent and the owner of the said vehicle is the 2nd respondent. The F.I.R was registered at 4.30 p.m., on 24.04.1998 based on the complaint given by V.A.O of Dommeru Village. 8. A perusal of the impugned Award would show that the Tribunal had framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.ABP 9119 by its driver (1st respondent). The F.I.R was registered at 4.30 p.m., on 24.04.1998 based on the complaint given by V.A.O of Dommeru Village. 8. A perusal of the impugned Award would show that the Tribunal had framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.ABP 9119 by its driver (1st respondent). The Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documentary evidence has categorically observed that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.ABP 9119 and answered the same in favour of APSRTC and against the respondents. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on this issue. 9. Now, the other issue involved in the present appeal is with regard to the existence of an insurance policy for the offending vehicle at the relevant time. The appellant had not filed any document to show that the offending vehicle was insured with their Company. The Motor Vehicle Inspector after inspecting the RTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 1395 had given his report which was marked as Ex.A.2. Column No.15 of Ex.A.2 shows that the insurance policy expired on 14.04.1998 and the name of the Insurance Company is United India Insurance Company. The name and address of the Company, which issued the policy in respect of the offending vehicle, the policy number, and the date of expiry are mentioned in Ex.A.2. Certified copy of the insurance policy i.e., Ex.B.1 goes to show that the vehicle bearing number ABP 9119 was insured under the Policy No.51100/11/21/11/00136/97 and the period of insurance was from 15.04.1997 till the midnight of 14.04.1998. Thereafter, the owner of the offending vehicle had not extended the policy and the accident occurred on 24.04.1998. As such, it is crystal clear that there was no privity of contract between the offending vehicle and the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company had placed ample evidence through Ex.B.1 to show that the offending vehicle was not insured at the time of the accident. Though there was no evidence contrary to the above fact, the Tribunal had held that the coverage of insurance at the time of the accident is presumable. 10. It would be relevant to have a reference of Section 64 VB of the Indian Insurance Act as follows: “64VB. Though there was no evidence contrary to the above fact, the Tribunal had held that the coverage of insurance at the time of the accident is presumable. 10. It would be relevant to have a reference of Section 64 VB of the Indian Insurance Act as follows: “64VB. No risk to be assumed unless premium is received in advance.—(1) 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. (2) For the purposes of this section, in the case of risks 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 in cash or by cheque to the insurer. 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. (3) Any refund of premium which may become due to an insured on account of the cancellation of a policy or alteration in its terms and conditions or otherwise shall be paid by the insurer directly to the insured by a crossed or order cheque or by postal money order and a proper receipt shall be obtained by the insurer from the insured, and such refund shall in no case be credited to the account of the agent. (4) Where an insurance agent collects a premium on a policy of insurance on behalf of an insurer, he shall deposit with, or dispatch by post to, the insurer, the premium so collected in full without deduction of his commission within twenty-four hours of the collection excluding bank and postal holidays. (5) The Central Government may, by rules, relax the requirements of sub-section (1) in respect of particular categories in insurance policies. [(6) The Authority may, from time to time, specify, by the regulations made by it, the manner of receipt of premium by the insurer.] 11. (5) The Central Government may, by rules, relax the requirements of sub-section (1) in respect of particular categories in insurance policies. [(6) The Authority may, from time to time, specify, by the regulations made by it, the manner of receipt of premium by the insurer.] 11. The aforesaid provision of the Insurance Act makes it clear that no insurer shall assume any risk in respect of any insurance policy unless and until the premium payable is received by him from the insured in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed in advance, and as such the insured lorry owner in the present case cannot be benefited from the Insurance Company. 12. Learned counsel for the APSRTC by citing a case in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Parvathneni, (2009) 8 SCC 785 , of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, argued that the direction to the Insurance Company to pay the compensation even though the Insurance Company is not liable under law, may be given with a liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. This is relevant to note that the validity of such direction was doubted and the matter was then referred to a larger Bench. 13. In Parvathneni's Case (Supra) there was a situation of no insurance coverage for the vehicle on the date of the accident and it was argued by the Insurance Company that for this reason, it was not liable to pay compensation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with Parvathneni's Case (Supra) felt that Article 142 of the Constitution of India does not cover such type of cases and therefore, directed the record of the case be placed before Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India, for constituting a larger bench to decide the following questions:- (i) If an Insurance Company can prove that it does not have any liability to pay any amount in law to the claimants under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 or any other enactment, can the Court yet compel it to pay the amount in question giving it liberty to, later on, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle? (ii) Can such a direction be given under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and what is the scope of Article 142? Does Article 142 permit the Court to create a liability whether there is none? 14. (ii) Can such a direction be given under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and what is the scope of Article 142? Does Article 142 permit the Court to create a liability whether there is none? 14. The question referred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is kept open by the Larger Bench vide its order dated 17.09.2013 in the petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.22444 of 2009 (The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Parvathneni), Hon'ble the three judges bench disposed of the petition saying that the question of law raised in this petition is kept open to be decided in an appropriate case. 15. In the light of discussions made here-in-above, the impugned judgment and award is obviously erroneous because the learned M.A.C.T did not traverse into the pleadings and evidence as to the existence of the contract of insurance between the United India Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle. The appellant/Insurance Company has asserted in its written statement of defence that there was no contract of the insurance coverage with the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., the lorry bearing No.ABP 9119 at the relevant date of the accident. 16. Moreover, the owner of the offending vehicle(lorry) did not discharge their initial burden of proving the existence of the contract of insurance, at the relevant date of the accident. On the other hand, the United India Insurance Company had issued a legal notice under Ex.B.2 to the owner of the offending vehicle with a request to produce the original records and policy particulars of the offending vehicle. Having received the said notice under Ex.B.3 acknowledgment, the owner of the vehicle did not respond by producing the particulars of the vehicle. Therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company succeeded in proving, the fact of the expiry of the contract of insurance coverage, by the date of the accident, by producing Exs.B.1 and B.4 i.e., Certified copy of the insurance policy and M.V.I.Report. Column No.15 of Ex.B.4 M.V.I Report shows the date of expiry of insurance by 14.04.1998. 17. Therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company succeeded in proving, the fact of the expiry of the contract of insurance coverage, by the date of the accident, by producing Exs.B.1 and B.4 i.e., Certified copy of the insurance policy and M.V.I.Report. Column No.15 of Ex.B.4 M.V.I Report shows the date of expiry of insurance by 14.04.1998. 17. The learned Tribunal did not frame any issue as to the existence of the contract of insurance between the owner of the offending vehicle(lorry bearing No.ABP 9119) and the appellant/Insurance Company or as to the, “liability of the appellant, towards a risk, occurred in the use of the lorry, on the relevant date of the accident, in absence of any insurance coverage certificate against such risks. The learned Tribunal without reaching any conclusion regarding the above relevant questions, held that the appellant/Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation for and on behalf of the owner of the offending vehicle, to the APSRTC in the motor accident claim petition for the damages caused to the RTC bus in the said accident. 18. The learned Claims Tribunal was not justified, in directing the appellant/United Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay all the amount of compensation, to the APSRTC, under the award passed against the owner of the offending vehicle, particularly, in the circumstances of the present case, there was no contract of insurance coverage existing between the Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle(lorry bearing No.ABP 9119), at the relevant date, when the accident occurred and the RTC bus sustained damages. 19. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal misconstrued the beneficient scheme legislated with safeguard to the interest of Insurance Companies, under Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in cases where the Insurance Company and motor vehicle owner are under a contract of insurance coverage regarding risks to person or property of a third party, which may occur in the use of the offending vehicle in the absence of any established law, in a situation of ''no contract of insurance coverage' at all, with the offending vehicle?s owner, despite the established law given by Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sunita Rathi and Ors, 1998(1) TAC 697 (SC)., held as follows: “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.” 20. In view of the above judgment, in the circumstances of the present case, there was no contract of insurance coverage existing between appellant/Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle at the relevant date when the accident occurred. Therefore, the insurer cannot be held liable, in the absence of insurance policy. As such, the learned Tribunal had committed an error, in issuing direction to the appellant/Insurance Company in the impugned award under appeal, by fixing the joint and several liability against the appellant along with the driver and owner of the offending vehicle to pay all the compensation awarded. 21. The case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is similar to the facts of the present case where the policy was expired by the date of the accident. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that, when the insurance policy and the cover note were obtained by the insured subsequent to the accident even though it was issued sometime later on the same day, the liability will have to be of the owner of the vehicle. In the context of the fact as established by the evidence on record that the accident took place on 24.04.1998 and the Insurance Policy expired on 14.04.1998 as per Exs.A.2 and B.4 Certified Copy of the M.V.I Report and Ex.B.1 Certified Copy of the Insurance Policy. It is crystal clear that, as on the date of the accident, there was no insurance policy in force. As such, the insurer cannot be held liable. 22. It is crystal clear that, as on the date of the accident, there was no insurance policy in force. As such, the insurer cannot be held liable. 22. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was in error in fixing joint and several liability on the Insurance Company along with the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, to pay all the compensation, even in the absence of any contract of insurance coverage. 23. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant-United India Insurance Company is allowed exonerating it from the liability of payment of compensation to the petitioner/APSRTC. The owner of the offending vehicle/2nd respondent is held responsible to pay the compensation to the petitioner/APSRTC. The 2nd respondent/owner of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against him. The amount, if any deposited by the appellant, shall be returned to the appellant. Rest of the directions given by the Tribunal with regard to entitlement of the petitioner/APSRTC in withdrawing the amount shall remain unaltered. The impugned award of the learned Tribunal stands modified to the aforesaid extent and in the terms and directions as above. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed.