ORDER : 1. Appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) challenging the award dated 17.01.2020 passed by Learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 15/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed by applicants therein/ claimants under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 in part and awarded total sum of Rs. 4,17,500/- as compensation in a fatal accident case and fastened liability upon non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 25.10.2017 at 10:00 am, Devchand Jaiswal was going from his native village Mahuli on a motorcycle Hero Honda Splendor (hereinafter referred to as “offending motorcycle”) to Janpad Panchayat Odgi to attend a meeting. Nagendra was sitting as pillion on the said vehicle. As soon as they reached near Seelan forest on the main road of Muski, due to technical fault in the said vehicle, wheel of the vehicle got jammed suddenly, due to which his motorcycle collided with a tree on the side of the road and Devchand received serious injuries on his head, chest and ear. He was immediately brought to Community Health Center Biharpur. He was referred to higher hospital but on the way he died. 3. Respondents No. 1 to 6/ claimants who are widow, children, parents and brother of deceased Devchand filed an application under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 35,55,000/- on the basis of pleadings made therein. 4. Non-applicant No. 1 / Respondent No. 7-owner of the motorcycle filed his reply to the claim application, while denying all the adverse pleadings made therein, it was further pleaded that non-applicant No. 1 had purchased Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Engine No. JA 06 EPHHG 01934, Chassis No. MBLJAR 133 HHG 02292 on loan from Asha Auto Mobiles-Hero Honda's sub-dealer Manendragarh Road Nagar Surajpur on 18.10.2017. Non- applicant No. 1 had given the insurance premium to the Asha Auto Mobiles for getting the said vehicle insured before accident, thus the responsibility of getting the vehicle insured was of Asha Auto Mobiles Surajpur. 5. Non- applicant No. 1 had given the insurance premium to the Asha Auto Mobiles for getting the said vehicle insured before accident, thus the responsibility of getting the vehicle insured was of Asha Auto Mobiles Surajpur. 5. Appellant-Non-applicant No. 2/ Insurance Company filed its reply, denying the pleadings made in the application, it was further pleaded that the offending motor cycle of non-applicant No. 1 involved in accident on 25.10.2017 at 12:30 pm was not insured by non-applicant No. 2. The accident happened due to the negligence of the deceased and the deceased did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the motor cycle. 6. Respondent No. 8/Non-applicant No. 3-Proprietor in his reply while rejecting all the pleadings made therein stated that he is not a dealer of two-wheelers of Hero Company, the dealer of two-wheelers of Hero Company is Anand Auto Mobiles, Anand Nagar Ambikapur. On the date of accident, the deceased Devchand caused an accident on the side of the road by driving the vehicle rashly and carelessly, in which Devchand suffered fatal injuries. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that deceased Devchand died because of grievous injuries suffered in an accident arising out of driving of offending motorcycle. Breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved, calculated the amount of compensation and awarded Rs. 4,17,500/- as total compensation. 8. Learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously fastened liability upon the Insurance Company overlooking the documentary evidence i.e. Insurance Policy Ext. A- 12, wherein the time of issuance of insurance policy is mentioned as 04:05 p.m. on 25.10.2017, whereas the accident happened on 25.10.2017 at about 12:30, in the afternoon. At the time of accident, no insurance policy was issued with respect to the sold offending motorcycle. He submits that the risk of the insurance company will resume only when the premium is received and the insurance policy is issued prior to date and time of the accident. 9. Mr. Kaushal Yadav, learned counsel for Respondent No. 8 supports the award and submits that the Claims Tribunal on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record has rightly held the insurance company liable to satisfy the amount of compensation which does not call for any interference. 10. 9. Mr. Kaushal Yadav, learned counsel for Respondent No. 8 supports the award and submits that the Claims Tribunal on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record has rightly held the insurance company liable to satisfy the amount of compensation which does not call for any interference. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 11. Learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company has raised sole ground that the liability fastened upon it is erroneous in the facts of the case as on the date and time of accident, no insurance policy was issued for the offending motorcycle. He submitted that though in the insurance policy marked as Ext. A-12 date is mentioned as 25.10.2017, however, the time of issuance of policy is mentioned at 04:52 p.m. 12. To appreciate the said submission, I have perused the document available in record. Perusal of Ext. A-2, F.I.R. would show that the accident happened on 25.10.2017 at about 12:30 p.m. Ext. NA-2 is the tax invoice bill issued by Anand Auto Mobiles, Authorized Dealer of Hero Company, in which the date of issuance of tax invoice is mentioned as 25.10.2017 and time 11:31:24 A.M., meaning thereby that the purchaser of the motorcycle ie., non-applicant No. 1 has made the payment at 11:31:24 hour or few minute before or after, and also paid the premium to purchase the insurance policy. Mukesh Agrawal is examined as NAW-2 on behalf of non-applicant No. 3. In his evidence, he stated that non-applicant No. 4 ie., Proprietor of Anand Auto Mobiles has engaged him as sub-dealer to sell motorcycle of his dealership, after selling of the vehicle, accepting money from the purchaser he transfers the money to Anand Auto Mobiles. He also admitted that he had accepted the amount against premium from the purchaser of the vehicle ie. non-applicant No. 1 and has forwarded it to the main office and thereafter it is Anand Auto Mobiles who do the work of insurance. He further admitted that the offending vehicle was insured on the same day after about four-hours of the accident, the accident was of 25.10.2017. non-applicant No. 1 and has forwarded it to the main office and thereafter it is Anand Auto Mobiles who do the work of insurance. He further admitted that the offending vehicle was insured on the same day after about four-hours of the accident, the accident was of 25.10.2017. He also stated that after receipt of money against the vehicle, for registration and premium of insurance policy, he permits the purchaser to take the vehicle outside the show-room and at the same time he also permits some of owners of newly sold vehicles to take outside the show-room as to get it insured from other agency outside, without getting the vehicle insured. 13. From the aforementioned evidence of NAW-2, it is crystal clear that non-applicant No. 1 has purchased the offending motorcycle on 25.10.2017 at bout 11:30 am, he made the payment of vehicle as well the premium to get the insurance policy for the vehicle and only thereafter he was permitted to move the newly purchased vehicle outside the show-room. Insurance company has not made any submission or it is not its case that Anand Auto Mobiles has not deposited the premium amount and therefore it is to be presumed that after receipt of amount Anand Auto Mobiles has deposited the amount with the company and the policy was issued. 14. During course of argument when question is posed looking to the contents of insurance policy, Ext. A-12, wherein the mono of Hero is also affixed, whether the Anand Automobiles is authorized agent of insurance company, counsel for appellant submits that they are having tie-up terms with Anand Auto Mobiles for getting the vehicle insured on behalf of appellant-Insurance company which are sold by them. In view of aforementioned facts of the case, Anand Auto Mobiles is the authorized agency on behalf of appellant- Insurance Company to accept the premium and to deposit it with the company. 15. Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 envisages no risk to be presumed unless the premium is received in advance. Relevant provision is extracted below for ready reference: “64VB. 15. Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 envisages no risk to be presumed unless the premium is received in advance. Relevant provision is extracted below for ready reference: “64VB. No risk to be assumed unless premium is received in advance: (1) No insurer shall assume any risk in India in respect of any insurance business on which premium is not ordinarily payable outside India unless and until the premium payable is received by him or is guaranteed to be paid by such person in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed or unless and until deposit of such amount as may be prescribed, is made in advance in the prescribed manner. (2) For the purposes of this section, in the case of risks for which premium can be ascertained in advance, the risk may be assumed not earlier than the date on which the premium has been paid in cash or by cheque to the insurer. Explanation. --Where the premium is tendered by postal money order or cheque sent by post, the risk may be assumed on the date on which the money order is booked or the cheque is posted, as the case may be. (3) Any refund of premium which may become due to an insured on account of the cancellation of a policy or alteration in its terms and conditions or otherwise shall be paid by the insurer directly to the insured by a crossed or order cheque or by postal money order and a proper receipt shall be obtained by the insurer from the insured, and such refund shall in no case be credited to the account of the agent. (4) Where an insurance agent collects a premium on a policy of insurance on behalf of an insurer, he shall deposit with, or dispatch by post to, the insurer, the premium so collected in full without deduction of his commission within twenty-four hours of the collection excluding bank and postal holidays. (5) The Central Government may, by rules, relax the requirements of sub-section (1) in respect of particular categories in insurance policies. (6) The Authority may, from time to time, specify, by the regulations made by it, the manner of receipt of premium by the insurer. 16. (5) The Central Government may, by rules, relax the requirements of sub-section (1) in respect of particular categories in insurance policies. (6) The Authority may, from time to time, specify, by the regulations made by it, the manner of receipt of premium by the insurer. 16. Sub-Section 2 of Section 64 VB provides that in the case risk for which the premium can be ascertained in advance the risk may be presumed not earlier than the date on which the premium is being paid in cash or by cheque by the insurer. Sub-section 4 envisages that wherein the insurer/ agency collects the premium of a policy of insurance on behalf of insurer, he shall deposit with, or dispatch by post to, the insurer, the premium so collected in full without deduction of his commission within twenty-four hours of the collection excluding bank and postal holidays. 17. From the above facts of the case as emerging from the record and evidence of NAW-2, it is apparent that Anand Auto Mobiles is authorized as an agency on behalf of appellant insurance company for collecting premium. Accordingly, the amount was deposited with the Anand Auto Mobile and the policy was also generated on the same day on 04:52 pm. Appellant-Insurance company has not brought any evidence to prove that the amount was not accepted by the agency engaged by it prior to the time of accident. The burden to prove the said fact was upon the appellant-Insurance company in which it utterly failed and therefore the Insurance Company will not be permitted to take benefit of his own wrong. 18. Considering the provisions of Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 and the explanation under sub-section 2 of Section 64 VB that as soon as the amount of premium is tendered either in cash, money order or cheque, the risk may be assumed on the date on which the money order is booked or the cheque is posted, as the case may be and therefore considering the fact that the premium amount has been deposited by the purchaser/ owner of the vehicle against the premium of the policy, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award, whereby the Claims Tribunal fastened liability upon the Insurance company to satisfy the award. Provision under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 is special provision wherein the claimants are not required to prove the negligence of other party or the other vehicle involved in the accident, and proof of negligence is sine quo only when the application is filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988. 19. Appeal being sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly.