JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the award dated 20.7.1998 in [CASE NUMBER] by XII Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur.
2. Indisputably, a petition was filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) by the respondent No. 1, the claimant, claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in an accident by truck No. MBJ 887 on 10.12.1991. It is also not in dispute that the appellant is the owner of the said truck, while it was driven by respondent No. 2. It was averred by the claimant that the truck was insured at the relevant time by respondent No. 3, [ENTITY] Jabalpur. The insurance policy, Exh. NA3-4, indisputably has been issued by the respondent No. 3 for the period from 10.12.1991 to 9.12.1992.
3. The learned Tribunal held that the accident as above occurred on 10.12.1991 at about 12.00 noon due to which the claimant-respondent No. 1 herein sustained injuries. An award of Rs. 25,000 with interest, therefore, was granted and it was held that the appellant owner and the respondent No. 2 driver of the truck were jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount. However, it was held by the learned Tribunal that at the time the accident took place, the truck causing the accident was not insured and, therefore, the respondent No. 3, the insurance company was absolved from the liability of payment of the amount of award.
4. In this appeal, the owner has challenged the finding of the Tribunal that the truck was not insured at the time of the accident and, therefore, the insurance company was not liable.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the policy of insurance marked as Exh. D/4 of non-applicant No. 3 covered the risk from 10.12.1991 to 9.12.1992. Relying upon [PRECEDENT], it was urged that the policy having been obtained on the date of accident had become operative from the previous midnight of the date of insurance after zero hour of the midnight and, therefore, the insurance company could not be absolved from liability of the payment of the award. Reliance, by the learned counsel, has also been placed on [ENTITY] v. Ram Dayal 1990 ACJ 545 (SC). It has also been urged that it is the insurance policy and not the cover note, which covers the risk and determines the rights and liability of the insurance company, vis-a-vis, the third party and, therefore, the mentioning of the time in the cover note (marked as Exh. NA3-1 by the Tribunal) would not absolve the insurance company from its liability. Reliance in this connection has been placed on [PRECEDENT].
6. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 insurance company has urged that the cover note marked as Exh. NA3-1 in pursuance of the proposal form Exh. NA3-2, for the insurance of the truck was issued after 3.15 p.m. on 10.12.1991. Since the accident occurred prior to it at about 12.00 noon, the truck was obviously not insured at that time. Therefore, relying upon [PRECEDENT], it has been contended that the insurance company was rightly absolved from liability of the amount of award.
7. In the instant case, proposal form, Exh. NA3-2, was filled up by the owner, respondent No. 2. In the said proposal form, date and time has been filled up which is 3.16 p.m. of 10.12.1991. On the basis of said proposal form, cover note, Exh. NA3-1, was issued by the appellant insurance company, which also indicates that the risk was covered from 3.15 p.m. of 10.12.1991 to midnight of 9.12.1992. Thereafter policy document of insurance, as per Exh. NA3-4 was issued, covering the risk from 10.12.1991 to 9.12.1992. It is true that in the policy document, Exh. NA3-4, the time of coverage of risk has not been mentioned. However, as noticed above, the proposal for insurance itself was given at 3.16 p.m. on 10.12.1991 pursuant to which cover note, Exh. NA3-1, was issued by which risk was covered from 3.15 p.m. of 10.12.1991.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the absence of mention of time in the policy document, Exh. NA3-4, the said policy would be deemed to cover the risk from the midnight intervening between 9 and 10.12.91, as has been laid down in the cases of [ENTITY] v. Ram Dayal 1990 ACJ 545 (SC) and [PRECEDENT]. However, in [PRECEDENT], it has been laid down that in view of the contract mentioned in the insurance policy, it would be operative from 4.00 p.m. on 25.10.1983 which was the time and date mentioned in the policy document of that case. Though, in the instant case, in the policy, Exh. NA3-4, ultimately issued, the time of coverage of risk has not been mentioned, but the cover note, Exh. NA3-1, mentioned the time of coverage of risk from 3.15 p.m. The proposal form, Exh. NA3-2, as noticed earlier also indicates that the same was filled up at 3.16 p.m., i.e., at about the time the said cover note was issued. Obviously, the policy document, Exh. NA3-4, would cover the risk only after proposal as per Exh. NA3-2 was submitted by the owner of the vehicle. In the circumstances, mention of the time in the cover note, Exh. NA3-1, would indicate that the coverage of risk started from 3.15 p.m. on 10.12.91, even though the time as above was not mentioned in the policy document (Exh. NA3-4).
9. In the above context, it may be noticed that [SECTION] of the [ACT], provides that every cover note issued by an authorised insurer shall be in Form No. 52 thereof and shall be valid for a period of 60 days from the date of its issue. [SECTION] of the Act defines 'certificate of insurance' as meaning certificate issued by an authorised insurer in pursuance of [SECTION] and includes a cover note complying with such requirements as may be prescribed, and where more than one certificate has been issued in connection with policy, or where a copy of a certificate has been issued, all those certificates or that copy, as the case may be. [SECTION] of the Act further provides that 'policy of insurance' includes certificate of insurance. Thus, it is clear that the cover note issued in accordance with [SECTION] of the [ACT] will be treated as policy of insurance. In view of the above, the cover note, Exh. NA3-1, would also be included within the definition of policy of insurance. That being so, the time of coverage of risk as mentioned therein would be relevant and binding on the insurer and the insured. Moreover, in the instant case, as noticed earlier, not only the cover note, but also the proposal form of the owner would indicate that the insurance was sought at about 3.15 p.m. on 10.12.91. Therefore, it cannot have retrospective operation.
10. In view of the above, the accident admittedly having taken place on 10.12.91 at 12.00 hours would not be covered by the policy of insurance issued by the insurer [ENTITY] Jabalpur, as is the ratio of [PRECEDENT]. In view of the above, the insurance company was rightly exonerated from liability by the Tribunal. This appeal, therefore, cannot succeed.
11. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is affirmed. This appeal stands dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs of this appeal.