IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.255 of 2010 1. FULVA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE HARI MANJHI 2. TETRI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE PRITAM MANJHI 3. SRIMANI KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF LATE HARI MANJHI (MINOR) 4. REKHA KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF LATE HARI MANJHI (MINOR) OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 3 TO 4 UNDER THE GUARDIAN OF HER MOTHER MOST. FULWA DEVI – OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 1 ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHAV, P.O. CHILIM, P.S. SHERGHATI, DISTRICT GAYA. ……..APPLICANTS-APPELLANTS Versus 1. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (THOUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NAGMATIA ROAD, GAYA 2. SRI VIJAY KUMAR, SON OF MOHAN LAL KHANDELWAL 3. SMT. SHOBHA AGRAWAL, DAUGHTER OF SMT. R.K. KHANDELWAL BOTH AT CHATRA, P.S. CHATRA, DISTRICT CHATRA, STATE JHARKHAND. ………OPPOSITE PARTEIS-RESPONDENTS 06/- 06.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for both the parties. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order 12.08.2009 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Gaya in M.A.C. No. 34/2008/27/2002 by which a direction has been given to defendant no. 2 & 3 for payment of interim compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- on account of death of one Hari Manjhi, the owner of the rickshaw. The appellants are claimant. The learned counsel for appellant has contended that the impugned order passed on the ground that the policy was not covered for the period when the occurrence took - 2 - place on 30.12.2001. The document suggest that the accident took place on 30.12.2001, but the opposite party no. 1 has filed photocopy of the proposal for policy/cover note produced by opposite party no. 2 and 3 which goes to show that proposal to insured the vehicle was from 31.12.2001 to 30.12.2002 and the same was accepted. Hence the court below held that it is clear that the said offending bus was not under valid insurance policy cover with the insurance company opposite party no. 1 at the relevant time of accident on 30.12.2001. Learned counsel for the appellant, however submits that though the proposal to cover the risk was from 31.12.2001 to 30.12.2002, it shall be deemed to be valid from 28.12.2001 itself when the proposal was made on 28.12.2001 and it shall deemed to be effective from 28.12.2001 hence contended that the impugned order is bad. However, the appellants are the claimants. The owners have not come forward against the order. The proposal and the cover note of the policy has been filed showing the proposal was to insured the vehicle from 31.12.2001 to 30.12.2002 on the basis of which, the learned - 3 - lower court has passed the impugned order that vehicle was not insured on relevant date. After due consideration of the proposal in which there is an averment to cover the risk from 31.12.2001 to 30.12.2002, it prima facie appears that the risk cover was effective from 31.12.2001 to 30.12.2002 and the impugned order passed. Hence the Tribunal after due consideration passed the order being prima facie satisfied that insurance policy did not cover the risk on 28.12.2001 and hence I do not find any merit to entertain the matter. However, the order has already been complied by the owner and the claimant-appellant can take steps for realization of the amount from the court concerned and hence I do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Praveen (Gopal Prasad, J.)