JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.02.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.22 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tindivanam.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award dated 19.02.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.22 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tindivanam. 2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.22 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tindivanam. The 1st respondent filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 07.12.2004. 3. According to 1st respondent, on 07.12.2004 he was travelling as pillion rider in the Suzuki Max 100R motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 22 C 1514 from Thinnalur to Tindivanam driven by his son on the North to South direction. At about 07.30 A.M., while he was nearing Malapakkam Village byepass road, a bus came from East to West near cross road and at that time, the rider of the motorcycle crossed the road from North to South with high speed in a rash and negligent manner without following the road traffic rules, dashed on the right side of the compound wall and caused the accident. Due to the said impact, the 1st respondent was thrown away from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the 1st respondent was taken to Tindivanam Government Hospital and thereafter he was shifted to Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry, where he has taken treatment as inpatient for 10 days. Therefore, he filed the above said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him against the 2nd respondent and appellant-Insurance Company, being the owner and insurer of the motorcycle respectively. 4. The 2nd respondent - owner of the motorcycle remained exparte before the Tribunal. 5. The appellant-Insurance Company, being the insurer of the motorcycle filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the 1st respondent. According to the appellant, the motorcycle belonging to 2nd respondent was not insured with them at the time of accident. 4. The 2nd respondent - owner of the motorcycle remained exparte before the Tribunal. 5. The appellant-Insurance Company, being the insurer of the motorcycle filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the 1st respondent. According to the appellant, the motorcycle belonging to 2nd respondent was not insured with them at the time of accident. Further, the rider of the motorcycle was not possessing valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The 1st respondent himself admits in the claim petition that his son was riding the motorcycle at the time of accident and hence, the 1st respondent is not entitled to claim compensation from the appellant- Insurance Company. For violation of Insurance Policy, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. The rider of the motorcycle was not impleaded, which is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The appellant denied the age, avocation, income, alleged injuries, period of treatment taken and the medical expenses incurred by the 1st respondent. In any event, the quantum of compensation claimed by the 1st respondent is highly excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. The appellant-Insurance Company filed additional counter statement and stated that the alleged accident took place on 07.12.2004 at about 07.30A.M., while the 1st respondent obtained policy for the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 22 C 1514 only from 00-00 'O clock on 08.12.2004 to midnight of 07.12.2005 bearing policy No.010802/31/04/06175. Hence, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the 1st respondent as there was no insurance coverage for the said motorcycle at the time of accident. The 2nd respondent is the son of the 1st respondent and both the respondents 1 & 2 colluded with each other and fraudulently filed the said claim petition only to claim compensation from the appellant and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition as against the appellant. 7. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1, Dr.Sekar was examined as P.W.2, 2nd respondent was examined as P.W.3 and 10 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P10. The appellant-Insurance Company did not let in any oral evidence and marked the copy of the Insurance Policy as Ex.R1. 8. 7. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1, Dr.Sekar was examined as P.W.2, 2nd respondent was examined as P.W.3 and 10 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P10. The appellant-Insurance Company did not let in any oral evidence and marked the copy of the Insurance Policy as Ex.R1. 8. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of the motorcycle belonging to 2nd respondent and directed the 2nd respondent as well as the appellant-Insurance Company jointly or severally to pay a sum of Rs.72,000/- as compensation to the 1st respondent. 9. To set aside the said award dated 19.02.2020 made in M.C.O.P.No.22 of 2008, the appellant has come out with the present appeal. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the accident occurred on 07.12.2004, whereas the insurance policy was issued only for the period from 08.12.2004 to 07.12.2005. The Tribunal erroneously held that appellant was liable to pay the compensation to the 1st respondent only based on the receipt issued on 06.12.2004. As per the policy issued by the appellant, the appellant is liable to pay the compensation only for the period mentioned in the Insurance Policy. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal directing the appellant to pay the compensation is erroneous and relied on the following judgments and prayed for allowing the appeal. (i) 1990 ACJ 545 , [New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Ram Dayal and Ors.]; (ii) 1997 ACJ 351 , [National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jijubhai Nathuji Dabhi and Ors.]; (iii) 1998 ACJ 121 , [Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sunita Rathi and Ors.]; (iv) 2000 ACJ 40 , [New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Sita Bai and Ors.]; (v) 2013 (1) TNMAC 103 (DB), [Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Salem-1 Vs. Vedathal and others] and (vi) 2015 ACJ 1021 , [Srinivasan Vs. Selvaranjan and Ors.]. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the Tribunal after considering the receipt dated 06.12.2004 issued by the appellant, rightly held that appellant is liable to pay the compensation and directed the appellant to pay the compensation to the 1st respondent. There is no error in the award of the Tribunal and relied on the judgment of this Court reported in 2020 SCC Online Mad 15928, [Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. There is no error in the award of the Tribunal and relied on the judgment of this Court reported in 2020 SCC Online Mad 15928, [Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Palani and another] and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the entire materials on record. 13. The only issue to be decided in the present appeal is whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the 1st respondent or not for the accident that occurred on 07.12.2004. 14. It is the case of the 1st respondent that the accident occurred on 07.12.2004 at about 07.30 A.M., while the 1st respondent was travelling as pillion rider in the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 22 C 1514 from Thinnalur to Tindivanam. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that on the date of accident, i.e., on 07.12.2004, the 2nd respondent's motorcycle was not having valid insurance policy and hence, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the 1st respondent. To support his contention, the learned counsel relied on Ex.R1/Insurance Policy, wherein it has been mentioned that 'Effective date of commencement of Insurance for the purpose of the Act From 00.00 O'clock on 08.12.2004 to Midnight of 07.12.2005'. On the other hand, the respondents have produced and marked the receipt for payment towards insurance policy of the motorcycle as Ex.P10, which shows that on 06.12.2004 itself they have paid the amount for insurance policy of the motorcycle. 15. As per Ex.P10, it is clear that the respondents have paid the amount for insurance policy of the motorcycle on 06.12.2004 itself and in Ex.R1/Insurance Policy, it has been mentioned that the Insurance of the motorcycle will commence only from 00.00 O' clock on 08.12.2004. There was no explanation as to why the policy commences only from 00.00 O' clock on 08.12.2004, when the amount for insurance policy was already paid on 06.12.2004 and the same was accepted by the Insurance Company. There was no explanation as to why the policy commences only from 00.00 O' clock on 08.12.2004, when the amount for insurance policy was already paid on 06.12.2004 and the same was accepted by the Insurance Company. A similar issue was considered by this Court in the judgment reported in 2020 SCC Online Mad 15928, cited supra, relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents, wherein this Court considered the following judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant (i) 1990 ACJ 545 ; (cited supra); (ii) 1997 ACJ 351 ; (cited supra); (iii) 1998 ACJ 121 ; (cited supra) and (iv) 2013 (1) TNMAC 103 (DB); (cited supra) and held in paragraph Nos.47 to 50 as follows: “ ... 47. The learned counsel for the appellant therefore submitted that, post dated coverage is given to avoid fraud and without getting the Policy, a Owner cannot use the vehicle and plead that he believed the policy would be for a particular period. The vehicle owner cannot plead a contract contrary to the written document. Hence the perverse approach of the Tribunal may be set aside. 48. On reading section 149 (2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is clear that, if any policy obtained by non disclosure of material facts ( like getting insurance after committing the accident), the insurance company can repudiate their liability. Such an ill can be cured by mentioning the time of payment of premium and not by issuing post dated coverage. Despite mention the time any attempt to cheat the insurance company surfaces, the insurer can resort to Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company that the coverage is given post dated to avoid fraud of remitting premium after accident is illusory. 49. Likewise, post dated coverage after receipt of the premium and allowing the vehicle to ply without insurance coverage during the interregnum period, go against the spirit of section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act. This tantamount to violation of the Act, Insurance company cannot be permitted to be privy for such violation. 50. Having entered into an agreement on a particular day after receiving the premium, it is for the insurance company to explain why a new policy after receipt of the premium was not given effect immediately on the same day but after two days. 50. Having entered into an agreement on a particular day after receiving the premium, it is for the insurance company to explain why a new policy after receipt of the premium was not given effect immediately on the same day but after two days. The reason for post dated insurance is not explained to the Court either through the pleadings or through the witness. Therefore, this Court finds that in the given facts and circumstances neither the insurance company nor the offending vehicle owner can deny their liability towards a third party, road accident victim . Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed.” 16. The facts in the judgment of this Court reported in 2020 SCC Online Mad 15928, is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. It is the for the Insurance Company to explain why a new policy after receipt of the premium was not given effect immediately on the same day but after two days. The reason for the post dated insurance is not explained to the Court. In view of the same, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant do not advance the case of the appellant. Hence, there is no error in the award of the Tribunal directing the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the 1st respondent warranting interference by this Court. 17. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and a sum of Rs.72,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation to the 1st respondent, along with interest and costs is confirmed. The 2nd respondent and the appellant-Insurance Company are jointly or severally directed to deposit the award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount if any already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.22 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tindivanam. On such deposit, the 1st respondent is permitted to withdraw the award amount along with interest and costs, after adjusting the amount, if any already withdrawn, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.