FAO No. 1481 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1481 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.3.2010 Ramesh Kumar .. Appellant v. Pushpender and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jatinder Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Pardeep Bedi, Advocate for the Insurance Company. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The owner is in appeal against the award dated 12.11.2005, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby liability of the compensation was put on the owner and driver, considering the fact that the vehicle was not found to be insured at the time of accident. Briefly, the facts are that on 15.1.2003, respondent No. 1-claimant was going on his motor cycle to attend his duties. He was driving the motor cycle on correct left side of the road and at moderate speed. When he reached one furlong ahead of Sales Tax Check Post, in the area of village Naurangpur, a dumper bearing No. HR-55-A-3036, being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, came from the opposite side and struck against the motor cycle. As a result of the impact, respondent No. 1-claimant received injuries. In the claim petition filed by respondent No. 1-claimant, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,84,000/- recoverable from the owner and driver of the vehicle. However, the Insurance Company was absolved of its liability. It is against this award that the owner is in appeal before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the cover note for insurance issued to the appellant, effective time was not mentioned, though it was effective from 15.1.2003 to 14.1.2004. Unless the time is mentioned, the same has necessarily to take effect from the previous mid-night, namely, mid night of 14/15.1.2003 and the accident in the present case having taken place on 15.1.2003 FAO No. 1481 of 2006 [2] at 9.00 A.M., the insurance company should be held liable to indemnify the insured. He has also placed on record the cover note as Annexure P.1 with the appeal. Reliance was placed upon J. Kalaivani v. K. Sivashankar, 2002(2) RCR (Civil) 805. After the learned counsel for the appellant concluded his arguments, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that he does not have the papers of the case and requested for a short adjournment. The request was rejected finding the same to be uncharitable. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. A perusal of the cover note (Annexure P.1) annexed with the appeal shows that the same was issued on 15.1.2003 at 4.30 P.M. The accident in the present case admittedly took place at 9.00 A.M. on 15.1.2003. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that in the column providing for effective date of commencement of the insurance, the time having not been mentioned, the time mentioned along with the date of issue should not be considered as effective time of insurance. However, this contention is totally misconceived. Once at the time of purchase of policy, specific time has been mentioned therefor, to state that the policy still should be considered to be effected from previous 12.00 mid night, cannot be accepted. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 25.3.2010 mk