THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.3048 of 1999 JUDGMENT: Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed O.P.No.592 of 1996 before the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda (for short ‘the Tribunal’) claiming a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation on account of the death of Gugulothu Janu, husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos.2 and 3. It was pleaded that on 25.03.1996, Janu was proceeding on a bicycle from Nunavath Thanda towards Kondrapole Village of Nalgonda District together with one B.Sroja on the left side of the road and that when they reached Venkateswara Rice Mill, a jeep bearing No.AKK 9626, owned by respondent No.4 and insured with the appellant, hit them from behind. Vadlapalli Police Station is said to have registered a case. Janu is said to have died while being shifted to hospital at Miryalaguda and that Saroja received injuries. The deceased was said to be 35 years at the time of his death and it was claimed that he was earning Rs.2,000/- per month. It was also alleged that the death occurred on account of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep. Respondent No.4 remained ex parte. The O.P. was contested by the appellant alone. It was pleaded that there is no valid insurance policy to cover the liability. To be precise, its case was that the accident occurred at 11.30 a.m., whereas, the insurance policy was taken out at 1.00 p.m. on that day. Through its order, dated 27.08.1998, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,39,404/- and apportioned the same among respondent Nos.1 to 3. Hence this appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were filed. On behalf of the appellant, Ex.B1 was filed. The occurrence of the accident and the death of the deceased as a result thereof was proved by examining an eye witness P.W.2 and by filing Exs.A1 to A4, F.I.R. in Crime No.14 of 1996, inquest report, M.V.I. report and post-mortem examination report respectively and charge sheet, Ex.A6. The appellant also does not dispute the finding of the Tribunal on this aspect. The dispute is about the liability on the part of the appellant to pay the compensation. In case Ex.B1 was in existence by the time the accident has taken place, the appellant could not have avoided its liability. A perusal of Ex.B1 discloses that it became operative from 1.00 p.m. on 25.03.1996. There is no denial of the fact that the accident occurred one and half hours prior to that. The insurance policy was taken out after the occurrence of the accident. Had the policy been silent as to the effective time, the situation would have been that it would cover the liability from the first hour of the day on which it was taken. Where, however, time is stipulated, different consequences follow. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunita Rathi[1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the policy would become effective from the time if it is mentioned in it. The said judgment applies to the facts of this case, since specific time was mentioned in Ex.B1. Hence, the appeal is allowed and it is held that the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. However, since respondent Nos.1 to 3 hail from a poor Scheduled Tribe family, it is directed that in case they have withdrawn any amount that was deposited by the appellant, they shall not be liable to refund the amount. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 28.12.2011. kdl [1] (1998) 1 Supreme Court Cases 365