JUDGMENT
Bilal Nazki, J.
1. Respondent No. 1, who was petitioner before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu had filed a claim petition for, compensation. His case was that on 27-12-1990, he was going to School on foot and was walking along the side of the road from his home. He was knocked down by a vehicle (truck) bearing registration No. JKR/ 3275. He got seriously injured and as a result thereof, his right leg was amputated while his left leg was badly bruised. The petitioner’s age at the time of accident was only eleven years. He became a crippled person and even could not continue with his education. He filed the claim petition against the driver, owner of the vehicle and also the Insurance Company. The Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:
(1) Whether on 27-12-1990 on the National Highway npar Kohli Mandi, Samba respondent No. 1 while under the employment of respondent No. 2 plied motor truck No. 3275/JKR, rashly and negligently with the result that the vehicle went on the wrong side of the road and hit the petitioner causing him such injuries as have led to his permanent disablement? OPP
(2) On proof of issue No. 1, whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, how much, from and in what proportion? OPP
(3) Whether the alleged offending vehicles was not insured on the relevant time with respondent/Insurance Company, if so, what is its effect? OPR-3
(4) Whether respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid driving licence at ihe relevant time and was plying the vehicle without any insurance cover, if so, what is its effect? OPR-3
(5) Relief.
2. Only the Insurance Company i.e. United Insurance Company has filed this appeal, and other parties/respondents to the claim petition have not filed any appeal against the award dated 27-4-1993.
3. It is only against issue No. 3 which has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the claimant/petitioner, that the present appellants seem to be aggrieved of. Therefore, in this appeal, this court will consider the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 3 only.
4. In their objections filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the appellant herein took a specific plea that the vehicle bearing registration No. 3275/JKR which was involved in the accident, was not insured with them at the time of accident. They have placed on record an earlier Policy with regard to the vehicle, which was effective from 21-12-1989 up to 20-12-1990. Since this policy was effective only up to 20-12-1990, it could not cover the risk after 20th of December, 1990. A fresh policy was taken by the owner of the vehicle on 27-12-1990, which was to remain effective up to 26-12-1991. The appellants have placed a cover note of the policy on record before the Tribunal as well this Court. The counsel for the appellant submitted that admittedly, the accident took place around 10 a.m. in the morning of 27-12-1990. He further submitted that the Insurance Policy was effective from 4 p.m. on 27-12-1990, therefore, they were not liable to pay any compensation, as the accident had taken place at around 10 a.m. in the morning on the said day, at that point of time, the said vehicle was not insured, therefore, they cannot be held liable to pay any compensation to respondent No. 1.
5. The counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that it is not the time of accident which is material in this case, but the date is material. Since, the policy was taken on 27th, of December, 1991, the appellants were liable to cover the risk from the midnight of 26th/27th December, 1990, because it is at the midnight that the day starts. It is immaterial at what time during the day the Insurance Policy was taken by the Insurer. He has placed reliance upon various judgments, including the judgment of the Supreme Court in case New India Assurance Company v. Ram Dayal reported in 1990 ACJ 545. The facts of the case before Supreme Court were also similar to the facts of the present case. The Insurance Company in that case had also pleaded that it was not liable, as the Insurance policy had been taken after the accident. In the case before Supreme Court, the vehicle stood insured up to 31-8-1994. The Insurance policy was renewable from that date, but instead of obtaining a fresh policy on that date, fresh insurance policy was taken from 28th of September, 1984. On the same day, the vehicle met with an accident. The Supreme Court while deciding the matter held “that the Insurer was liable because on the day of accident the vehicle had been insured.” In view of the law laid down so’ clearly by the Supreme Court, I do not find that the Tribunal’s decision on this issue requires any interference from this Court. According to the policy cover note, the owner of the vehicle approached the appellants on 27-12-1990, and on the same day, they insured the vehicle and accepted the premium. They cannot be now permitted to take a defence that since it was not disclosed to them by the Insured that the vehicle had met with an accident, they were not liable. It was their duty and job to ascertain whether the vehicles was involved in any accident from 20-12-1990 up to 26-12-1990, for which period the vehicle in question was not insured. Earlier also, the vehicle had been insured with the same Insurance Company, and they very well know it that for a period of 6 to 7 days, the vehicle was not insured. Before giving the insurance cover to the owner of the said vehicle, it was incumbent upon them to first ascertain whether the vehicle was involved in any accident during the intervening period, particularly on the day when the new Insurance policy was taken by the Insured. The respondent No. 1 who is a minor, and who had been only 11 years of tender age at the time of accident and who has lost his one ieg, cannot be allowed to suffer because of the negligence on the part of appellants in ascertaining whether the vehicle insured was involved in the accident or not, before giving it an Insurance cover.
6. Although the appellants in their memo of appeal have said that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to respondent No. 1 was high, yet they have not seriously controverted the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal. I have gone through the evidence, and I do not think that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side, while keeping in view that a young boy of 11 years of tender age has lost his one leg permanently, and has been rendered crippled for ever.
7. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed accordingly. The record shall be remitted back to the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, jammu.