“15. There is no evidence before me to accept the proposal form now available with the insurer, the appellant, requesting to commence the insurance coverage from 11.1.2000 to 10.1.2001, for a period of 12 months. It is not in dispute, as the facts now reveal, that the premium was paid by the 5th respondent, the owner, at 12.14 p.m. on 10.1.2000. The vehicle was originally insured with the appellant. Letter of renewal was sent by the insurer to the owner of the vehicle, but he did not renew till 10.1.2000.1 have already discussed that in the light of the principles that is contained in section 146 of the Act, no owner of the vehicle is allowed to ply his vehicle, without an insurance coverage for that vehicle. There is a mandate on the part of the insurer also to insure the vehicle for which premium is remitted, and to have the coverage commenced, if there is already a policy in existence, from that date and time of its expiry or from the date and time at which the premium was paid, as per the terms of the contract contained in the policy. In view of the principles contained in Ram Dayal, Jikubai cases, which have been consequently followed in Bhagwati and Chinto Devi cases, it is for the owner as well as for the insurer to adduce evidence to show, in the facts of this case, when the actual liability of the insurer commenced, as the premium was paid on 10.1.2000,1 hereby reiterate the mandate contained in section 146 of the Act, that no vehicle be plied without a valid insurance coverage of that vehicle, and in such circumstances, the premium paid by the 5th respondent, owner of the vehicle, shall only be for having an insurance coverage of his vehicle. Therefore, the owner cannot escape from his liability to pay the appropriate premium, and to have an insurance coverage for the vehicle. Hence, he cannot opt for a
