Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 108 (GAU)

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. BENU CHANDRA DEB

2001-04-12

B.B.DEB

body2001
JUDGMENT : 1. By the aforesaid Civil Revision No. 64/99, the petitioner challenged the order dated 3.7.1999 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala in Civil Misc. (Review) No. 107/99 arising out of Title Suit (MAC) No. 357 of 1996 and by Civil Revision No. 65 of 1999, the petitioner challenged the order dated 3.7.1999 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala in Civil Misc. (Review) No. 103 of 1999 arising out of Title Suit (MAC) No. 365 of 1996. 2. The claimant-respondents filed claim petitions, one in Title Suit (MAC) No. 356/96 and another in Title Suit (MAC) No. 357/96 contending, inter alia, that on 7.8.1996 due to head-in-collision between two vehicles bearing No. TRS 909 (Bus) and TRT 2543 (Jeep) an accident happened and the claimant-respondents of the aforesaid cases sustained injuries. The learned Tribunal caused inquiry and awarded compensation of Rs. 30,000 in TS (MAC) No. 357/1996 and Rs. 35,000 in TS(MAC) No. 356/1996 with 12% interest per annum with effect from 27.8.1996 holding both the vehicles are guilty and the liability of payment of 50% of the awarded amount has been fastened to the petitioner National Insurance Co. Ltd. on the ground that the vehicle TRT-2543 (Jeep) was insured with the petitioner Insurance Company at the relevant time. The petitioner Insurance Company took the plea that the vehicle TRT 2543(Jeep) was not insured with it at the relevant time. 3. After the award was made, the petitioner made petitions seeking review/recall of the orders passed by the learned Tribunal imposing 50% liability upon the petitioner and the review petitions were registered vide No. Civil Misc (Review) 103/99 and Civil Misc. (Review) 107/99. The petitioner submitted the copies of the two insurance policies showing that on the relevant date there was no valid insurance policy and as such the petitioner sought for review of the orders passed by the learned Tribunal. 4. The learned Tribunal took up the review matters and disposed of the same vide order dated 3.7.99 in both the cases. The learned Tribunal perused the insurance policies. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the finding of the learned Tribunal is reproduced below :- "On perusal of the insurance policy it is found that validity of the insurance policy was expired on 2.7.96. The learned Tribunal perused the insurance policies. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the finding of the learned Tribunal is reproduced below :- "On perusal of the insurance policy it is found that validity of the insurance policy was expired on 2.7.96. From the renewal policy it is found that it was renewed on 30.8.96. As subsequent one is the renewal of original policy it can not be termed as new policy. It is continuous one which is not dependent on the norms of the company that the policy becomes valid only on receipt of renewal premium." 5. On perusal of the related provisions of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, it appears that there is no provision for renewal of insurance policy though admittedly there is a provision for renewal of driving licence, under Chapter XI of the M.V. Act, 1988, issuing of insurance policy, coverage thereof, liability of the insurer etc. are provided, but nowhere it is prescribed that the insurance policy could be renewed and admittedly; in the present case the vehicle TRT 2543(Jeep) was insured with the petitioner insurance company for one year expired on 2.7.96 and the next insurance policy was issued on receipt of the premium on 30.8.96 for further one year while the accident happened on 7.8.1996 and admittedly on 7.8.96 there was no insurance policy in force. The policy issued for one year commencing from the date of issue and there is no provision for renewal of insurance policy once issued while so far driving licence is concerned, section 15 of the MV Act, 1988 speaks of renewal provision. Section 15 prescribes that a driving licence can be renewed in case the application seeking renew of the licence is made before the expiry or within thirty days of the expiry of the valid period, the renew would take effect from the date expiry. But in case the renew is made more than thirty days after the date of expiry, the renew would take effect from the date of renewal. But there is no provision for renewal of insurance policy akin to the provision of renewal of driving licence and as such the insurance policy issued on 30.8.96 took effect from the date of issue i.e. 30.8.96 and not from the date of expiry of the earlier policy and as such on the date of accident viz. But there is no provision for renewal of insurance policy akin to the provision of renewal of driving licence and as such the insurance policy issued on 30.8.96 took effect from the date of issue i.e. 30.8.96 and not from the date of expiry of the earlier policy and as such on the date of accident viz. 7.8.96 there was no valid insurance policy at all. 6. Mrs. P. Deb, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant-respondents relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Inderjit Kaur and Others, and submits that notwithstanding when the policy was issued it would take effect from a previous dated. According to the learned counsel for the claimant-respondents, irregular policy would also protect the third party risk. 7. In the aforesaid reported case of Inderjit Kaur (supra) the fact was that the owner of the vehicle applied for insurance policy and the premium was paid by cheque, policy was issued, but subsequently cheque was dishonoured and in the meantime, the accident happened and question arose whether that irregular policy could cover the third party risk. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Insurance Company was not absolved of its obligations to third parties under the policy on the ground of non-receipt of the premium. Its remedy in this behalf lays against the insured and not against the third party. The case in hand is of different nature. In the present case, there was no policy at all on the date of accident, but in the reported case of Inderjit Kaur (supra) there was a valid policy on the date of accident issued by the Insurance Company and subsequently it was detected that premium paid by cheque was dishonoured and as such the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court is of no help to the case in hand. 8. Under the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal committed vital illegality in construing that the policy expired on 2.7.96 covered the risk of accident happened on 7.8.96 by the insurance policy Issued subsequently on 30.8.96. 8. Under the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal committed vital illegality in construing that the policy expired on 2.7.96 covered the risk of accident happened on 7.8.96 by the insurance policy Issued subsequently on 30.8.96. Since there is no renewal provision with retrospective effect from the date of expiry of the earlier policy, the subsequent policy took Its effect from the date of issue that is on 30.8.96 and as such it could not cover the accident happened on 7.8.96. 9. Viewed aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion to hold that the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal is quite illegal having no sanction of law and as such quashed. The impugned awards made by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in T.S. (MAC) 356/96 and T.S. (MAC) 357/96 are hereby quashed so far the 50% liability of the petitioner Insurance Company regarding the vehicle TRT-2543 (Jeep) is concerned. However, the claimant-respondents may proceed against the owner of the said vehicle for realisation of 50% of the awarded money. 10. With the above observations and direction, both the Civil Revision petitions stand disposed of with no order as to costs.