MILAP CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer dated December 8, 1988 by which it has directed under Sec. 92-A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referre4 to as 'the Act') the owners and the insurer to make payment of Rs. 15,000/- to the claimants. The facts of the case may be summarised thus.
(2.) ON 13. 11. 87, at about 1. 30 P. M. , an accident took place near the stadium at Barmer by truck No. RRQ 9807. Claimant's son Sakhi died on the spot. Claim petition under Section 110-A of the Act was filed against the owners, driver and insurer of the said truck along with an application under Sec. 92-A of the Act. The insurer-appellant averred in its written-statement that the said truck was insured at 4 P. M. on 13. 11. 87, it was not insured at the time of the accident and the owners concealed the material fact that the said vehicle had thus met with an accident. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal passed the impugned order. A photo-stat copy of the cover note has been filed along with the memo of appeal. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is clear from the cover note that the truck No. RRQ 9807 was insured at 4 P. M. on 13. 11. 87 and in the claim petition, the time of the accident has been shown to be 1. 30 P. M. of 13. 11. 87. He contended that it is thus clear that the said truck was not insured at the time of the accident and as such the appellant cannot be held liable for the payment of the said amount of Rs. 15. 000/- to the claimants. Even assuming that the cover note was issued at 4 P. M. on 13. 11. 87, the appellant is liable to make payment of the said amount of Rs. 15,000/ -. Column No. 3 of the cover note runs as under: - "3. Effective date of commencement of insurance for the purpose of the Act. " 13. 11. 87. " It means that the he policy was effective from 0' hours of November 13, 1987. In other words, the insurance for the purpose of the Act commenced from the mid night of the night intervening 12th & 13th November, 1987. In this column, effective time of commencement of the insurance is not mentioned. Effective date of commencement of insurance is mentioned. If the time would have been the determining factor, the column would not have been so. It has been observed in Maya Devi v. Hoob Raj, (1) as under : "8. This brings me to the consideration of issue No. 4. On behalf of the insurance company, it is argued that the accident took place at about 7. 30 a. m. whereas the truck was got insured on the same day after 10. 00 a m. after the opening of the office and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable. In Jaikrishandas vs. Chiruthai Ammal 1984 ACJ 530 Madras (1) and United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Srinivasan 1980 ACJ 413, Madrasd) it has been ruled that if the insurance policy is obtained on the same date after the accident, yet it would operate from the previous midnight and, therefore, the insurance company would be liable. The learned counsel for the insurance company could not show any judgment to the contrary. Following the aforesaid two decisions, I hold that the insurance company is liable to reimburse the insured, i. e. , the owner of the truck. Hence, issue No. 4 stands decided accordingly. " The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon M/s Bhagchand Panjuram v. Smt. Snehlata (2 ). The facts of this case are quite different & distinguishable. On the basis of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the insurance of the vehicle in question with the Indian Merchantile Insurance Company was taken after the accident had already taken place with back date, concealing the facts of the accident and its earlier insurance with the Life Insurance Corporation. Thus there is no force in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal is summarily dismissed. . ;