JUDGMENT : RAVI V. HOSMANI, J. 1. MFA No.203891/2023 is filed challenging judgment and award dated 27.06.2023 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi, (for short ‘tribunal) in MVC no.1005/2018. 2. MFA No.204209/2023 is filed challenging judgment and award dated 27.06.2023 passed by Motor Accident Claims HC-KAR Tribunal and III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi, in MVC no.1004/2018. 3. Both appeals are by insurer and as they arise out of same accident, challenge by insurer is on same grounds, for sake of convenience, specific facts in MFA no.203891/2023 would be referred to. 4. Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel submitted that appeals were by insurers challenging judgment and award passed by Tribunal on liability only. It was submitted, as per claimant, on 23.06.2017, when claimant- Raghavendra was driving car bearing registration no.KA- 02/MA-3515 with his friend Gopal as passenger, near Ambedkar Bhavan, Kalaburagi, driver of offending car bearing registration no.MH-12/GF-6756 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against claimant’s car. In accident, claimant and his friend sustained injuries and took treatment at Vaatsalya Hospital, Kalaburagi. Despite taking treatment, he did not recover fully, sustained physical disability and consequent loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim HC-KAR petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against owner and insurer of offending car. 5. On service of notice, owner and insurer entered appearance and opposed petition. In its objections, insurer denied age, occupation and income of claimant as well as manner of occurrence of accident. It was specifically contended that accident occurred on 23.06.2017 and as insurer had issued policy with coverage beginning from 24.06.2017, insurer was not liable to pay compensation. Even contention about driver not holding valid and effective driving licence was also urged. 6. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant examined himself and Dr.Ravi E.Shivaraya as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16. On other hand, insurer examined its official as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2. 7. On consideration, Tribunal held issue no.1 in affirmative, issue no.2 partly in affirmative and issue no.3 by allowing claim petition in part holding claimant entitled for compensation of Rs.3,40,400/- with interest at 6% per annum from date of claim petition till deposit. It also held insurer HC-KAR would be entitled to recover compensation after paying same to claimant. 8. 7. On consideration, Tribunal held issue no.1 in affirmative, issue no.2 partly in affirmative and issue no.3 by allowing claim petition in part holding claimant entitled for compensation of Rs.3,40,400/- with interest at 6% per annum from date of claim petition till deposit. It also held insurer HC-KAR would be entitled to recover compensation after paying same to claimant. 8. Aggrieved by said award, insurer had filed appeal. 9. It was submitted, occurrence of accident involving insured vehicle due to rash and negligent driving by its driver and claimant sustaining grievous injuries therein resulting in physical disability leading to loss of earning capacity were not in dispute. It was submitted, as per police investigation records, namely Exs.P1 to P5, accident occurred at 6.45 p.m., in evening. Owner of offending car purchased insurance policy after accident. It was submitted, though Ex.R1-insurance policy indicated date of issuance as 23.06.2017, period of coverage was specifically mentioned as commencing from 24.06.2017 to 23.06.2018. It was submitted, Ex.R2 indicated time of payment of insurance premium as 8.27 p.m., which would be after accident in question. Relying upon decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of New India Insurance Co. v. Bhagwati Devi and Ors. , (1998) 6 SCC 534 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sobina Iakai and Ors. , 2007 ACJ 2043 , it was submitted, purchase of HC-KAR insurance policy after accident would disentitle insurance coverage and therefore, Tribunal would not be justified in holding insurer liable to pay compensation. On said grounds, sought for allowing appeals. 10. Smt.Hema L.K., learned counsel for claimant submitted relying on Division Bench decision of this Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Bhadramma and Ors. [MFA No. 6451/2003 disposed of on 21.01.2009] and Single Judge in Sudharshan v. Subash and Anr. [MFA No. 31894/2012 disposed of on 02.12.2020] to contend that risk of insurer would begin from time of acceptance of insurance premium. 11. It was submitted, as insurer was seeking to avoid liability by contending that insurance premium was paid at 8:51 p.m., i.e., after occurrence of accident, burden to establish said fact would be on insurer. It was submitted insurer’s only effort in this regard was examination of it’s official as RW.2, production of insurance policy as Ex.R.1 and extract of premium receipt as Ex.R.2. 12. It was submitted, Ex.R.1 clearly indicated receipt of insurance premium on 23.06.2017. It was submitted insurer’s only effort in this regard was examination of it’s official as RW.2, production of insurance policy as Ex.R.1 and extract of premium receipt as Ex.R.2. 12. It was submitted, Ex.R.1 clearly indicated receipt of insurance premium on 23.06.2017. Accident in question occurred at 6:15 p.m. on same day after office hours. Hence, insurance premium would be deemed received by insurer prior to accident. It was submitted Ex.R.2 was not a bank statement or receipt. RW.2 admitted it to be generated at his office. Same would establish failure on part of insurer to discharge burden to avoid liability. Therefore, impugned judgment and award holding insurer liable would be in accordance with ratio in Smt.Bhadramma and Sudharshan’s cases (supra). On said grounds sought dismissal of appeal. 13. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award and record. 14. These appeals are by insurer challenging judgment and award passed by tribunal holding it liable to pay compensation to claimants. Since, claimants have not preferred appeal, only point that would arise for consideration is: “Whether in present case, contract of insurance of motor vehicle commenced from time of receipt of insurance premium and consequently whether tribunal was justified in holding insurer liable to pay compensation?” 15. In view of above, occurrence of accident on 23.06.2017 at 6:15 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of car no. MH-12-GF-6756, claimant sustaining permanent physical disability and consequent loss of earning capacity and being entitled for compensation as assessed by tribunal are not in dispute. Even payment of insurance premium on 23.06.2017 and issuance of Ex.R.1 – insurance policy are also not in dispute. Specific ground on which insurer is seeking to avoid liability is occurrence of accident and prior to commencement of contract of insurance. 16. Main contention of claimant is that Ex.R.1 indicates receipt of insurance premium on 23.06.2017, and though accident occurred at 6:15 p.m. on same day, it was after office hours. Since receipt of insurance premium can be only during office hours, it should be deemed that it was received prior to accident in question. Hence applying ratio of decisions of this Court in Smt.Bhadramma and Sudharshan’s cases (supra), there would be deemed coverage. Hence award of tribunal holding insurer liable to pay compensation was justified. 17. Since receipt of insurance premium can be only during office hours, it should be deemed that it was received prior to accident in question. Hence applying ratio of decisions of this Court in Smt.Bhadramma and Sudharshan’s cases (supra), there would be deemed coverage. Hence award of tribunal holding insurer liable to pay compensation was justified. 17. On other hand, insurer firstly contends that premium was paid at 8:51 p.m. i.e. after occurrence of accident; secondly, in Ex.R1 – insurance policy issued, date and time of commencement of contract of insurance was clearly stipulated and as accident had not occurred during period of coverage, it was not liable to pay compensation. 18. Ex.R1 clearly depicts receipt of insurance premium as 23.06.2017, but mentions commencement of insurance from 12:00 a.m. of 24.06.2017 till 12:00 a.m. on 23.06.2018. Accident in question occurred at 6:15 p.m. on 23.06.2017. Though, claimants seek for drawing of presumption about receipt of insurance premium during office hours on 23.06.2017 while insurer has sought to contend that as per Ex.R2, premium was received at 8:51 p.m. on 23.06.2017. 19. When Section 64-VB of Insurance Act, 1938 merely mandates insurer to receive insurance premium prior to assumption of risk of insured or to assume it after assurance about payment. It does not provide any basis for conclusion that risk stands assumed moment insurance premium is received. In a contract of insurance, payment of insurance HC-KAR premium amounts only to making an offer to insurer and contract of insurance is completed after insurer accepts offer and issues policy. Therefore, mere acceptance of insurance premium would not by itself lead to commencement of insurance. 20. Insofar as stipulation in policy about time of commencement of insurance coverage, this Court in Smt.Neelamma v. Smt.Boramma reported in 7386, held: “Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sita Bai, (1999) 7 SCC 575 ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi, (1997) 1 SCC 66 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sobina Iakai, (2007) 7 SCC 786 has held that in order to curb widespread mischief of getting insurance policies after accidents, it was imperative to clearly hold effectiveness of insurance policy would commence from time and date specifically incorporated in policy and not from an earlier point of time.” 21. Ltd. v. Sobina Iakai, (2007) 7 SCC 786 has held that in order to curb widespread mischief of getting insurance policies after accidents, it was imperative to clearly hold effectiveness of insurance policy would commence from time and date specifically incorporated in policy and not from an earlier point of time.” 21. A Division Bench of this Court in Samilulla v. Mehatabulla, 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 1366, after referring to decision in Sudharshan’s case (supra) held: “24. To discuss the same, it is necessary to mention the relevant sections of Indian Contract Act. Section 2(a), (b) and (c) reads under: 2(a) When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal; 2(b) When the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted. A proposal, when accepted, becomes a promise; 2(c) The person making the proposal is called the “promisor”, and the person accepting the proposal is called the “promisee.” Section 4 reads as under: “4. Communication when complete.—The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to the knowledge of the person to whom it is made. The communication of an acceptance is complete,—as against the proposer, when it is put in a course of transmission to him, so as to be out of the power of the acceptor; as against the acceptor, when it comes to the knowledge of the proposer. The communication of a revocation is complete,—as against the person who makes it, when it is put into a course of transmission to the person to whom it is made, so as to be out of the power of the person who makes it; as against the person to whom it is made, when it comes to his knowledge.” 25. In this case, as per Ex.R4, the insured had made a proposal by submitting prescribed form with paying premium in advance at about 4.00 p.m. and made a proposal to insure his vehicle for a period of one year from 22.05.2015 till 21.05.2016. The said proposal was accepted by Insurer. According to the evidence of R.Ws.2 and 3, both the parties to the said agreement or contract, knew that the liability of insurer commences from 00.00 hours on 22.05.2015. The said proposal was accepted by Insurer. According to the evidence of R.Ws.2 and 3, both the parties to the said agreement or contract, knew that the liability of insurer commences from 00.00 hours on 22.05.2015. Respondent No. 1 did not request respondent No. 2 to commence the liability immediately after acceptance of the policy or proposal given by respondent No. 1. Therefore, when by clear terms both the parties, i.e., respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 agreed that the liability of respondent No. 2 shall commences from 00.00 hours of 22.05.2015, now he cannot claim that he paid the premium at about 4.10 p.m. therefore, liability of respondent No. 2 i.e., insurer commences immediately after receipt of Ex.R4 and it is not legally sustainable.” 22. In view of above legal position it can no longer be contended that assumption of risk commences from time of receipt of insurance premium regardless of stipulation of commencement in policy. If time and date of commencement of insurance coverage is not stipulated in policy, insurance coverage would be from 12:00 am of date of receipt of premium. But in case of clear stipulation, there cannot be any contention to the contrary. 23. Hence, point for consideration is held in negative. 24. Consequently following: ORDER: i. Appeals are allowed, judgments and awards dated 27.06.2023 in MVCs.no.1005/2018 and 1004/2018 passed by III Additional HC-KAR Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi are set-aside only insofar as holding insurer jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to claimants herein. ii. Amount in deposit by appellant-insurer is ordered to be refunded to it. iii. It is clarified that only respondent no.2-owner of offending vehicle, would be liable to pay compensation. Same to be deposited before tribunal within eight weeks.