Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2011 (PNJ)

New India Assurance Company Limited v. Meena Devi

2009-11-19

A.N.JINDAL

body2009
Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. This appeal filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited (herein referred as -the appellant-) is against the award dated 22.7.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (herein referred as -the Tribunal-) awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.4,85,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum in favour of the claimants- respondents (herein referred as -the respondents No. 1 to 6-) and against the appellant as well as respondents No.7 to 9 jointly and severally. It was further ordered that the Insurance Company alone shall indemnify the owner. 2. The main grouse of the appellant is that the accident in the case took place on 19.9.2005 at 4.30 p.m. whereas, the vehicle was insured w.e.f. 20.9.2005 i.e. mid night of 19.9.2005 to 19.9.2006 vide insurance policy Ex.R-1. The policy (Ex.R 1) stipulates that it would take effect w.e.f. 20.9.2005, therefore, the accident having taken place much prior to the mid night of 19/20.9.2005 i.e. at about 4.30 p.m. on 19.9.2005, the company cannot be held liable. 3. To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that since the company had received the premium as well as the papers were got signed on 19.9.2005, therefore, the stipulation, if any, with regard to commencement of the policy from 20.9.2005 would hardly effect their rights and will not give speech to the company to say that the policy was not in force. 4. Before adverting to determine as to if the accident which occurred on 19.9.2005 at 4.30 p.m. is covered by the policy (Ex. Rl). For this purpose it would be essential to reproduce the statement R.K. Kangra, Administrative Officer (RW-1). This witness has revealed that the vehicle was earlier insured with their company from 11.9.2004 to 10.9.2005 and thereafter it was insured from 20.9.2005 to 19.9.2006. He has also stated that the truck in question was produced before him on 19.9.2005 for inspection at 2.00 p.m. on the said date and the policy was also issued on the same date. Cover note was issued on 19.9.2005, but it further reveals that the policy was to commence from 20.9.2005. This cover note was undoubtedly signed by the proposer. The policy Ex.R-1 also contains the same terms that it would be effective from 20.9.2005 to 19.9.2006. Cover note was issued on 19.9.2005, but it further reveals that the policy was to commence from 20.9.2005. This cover note was undoubtedly signed by the proposer. The policy Ex.R-1 also contains the same terms that it would be effective from 20.9.2005 to 19.9.2006. The earlier policy regarding which a reference was made by this witness refers to another period which expired on 10.5.2005 and the same has non relevance. 5. The policy of insurance being contract between the insurer and insured, they were bound by the terms and conditions contained therein. In the absence of any time or date as to when the policy was to commence, it would commence from the previous mid night if it was brought during the day, meaning thereby that policy Ex.Rl as issued on 20.9.2005 by the insurer was to commence from 20.9.2005. In the absence of any time with regard to commencement it was certainly to commence from the mid night of 19/20.9.2005 and it could in no terms be treated as effective from the afternoon of 19.9.2005. While interpreting the effective date of commencement of the insurance policy for the purpose of act from 0 o-clock, the Apex Court in case New India Assurance Company Limited v. Sita Bai (Smt.) and others, 1999(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 644- (1999) 7SCC 575 observed as under -- "6. The correctness and applicability of the judgment in Ram Dayal case, (1990) 2 SCC 680 came up for consideration before this Court subsequently in a number of cases. In New India Assurance Co. v. Bhagwati Devi, 1999(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 350- (1999) 6 SCC 534, a three Judges Bench of this Court relied upon the view taken in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi, 1997(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 397- (1997) I SCC 66 wherein it had been held that if there is a special contract, mentioning in the policy the time when it was brought, the insurance policy would be operative from that time and not from the previous midnight as was the case in Ram Dayal case where no time from which the insurance policy was to become effective had been mentioned. It was held that should there be no contract to the contrary, an insurance policy becomes operative from the previous midnight, when bought during the day following, but in cases where there is a mention of the specific time for the purpose of the policy, then a special contract comes into being and the policy becomes effective from the time mentioned in the cover note/policy itself. The judgment in Jikubhai case has been sub-sequently followed in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Sunita Rathi (1998-1) 118 P.L.R. 195 (SC)- (1998) 1 SCC 365, by a three Judges Bench of this Court also." 6. Thus, the ratio as drawn from the aforesaid judgment is that in case the policy or the cover note come into existence bearing certain terms, then the contract would be complete and commence from the date and time when it was sought to be so commenced. As such, in the present case also the cover note as well as the policy did not bear any time when it was to commence, however, it bears the date of 20.9.2005 of its commencement. Thus, it would certainly commence from the mid night of 19/20.9.2005. Similarly, observations were made by the Apex Court in case Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Porselvi and another, 2009(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 926- (2009- 3) P.L.R. 65. The Tribunal has taken wrong note of the fact while making observations that if the company had received the premium then that policy would be treated as issued and taken effect, but the parties were bound by the stipulations as contained in the policy. As such, the findings as recorded by the Tribunal fastening the liability of the Insurance Company do not stand to the reason and need to be reversed. 7. Resultantly, while reversing the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.4, this appeal is accepted and it is ordered that the company stands exonerated from the liability as fastened by the Tribunal. However, the liability to compensate the claimant which has been fastened by the Tribunal upon the respondent No.7 to 9 would remain intact.