Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 598 (JK)

N. I. C. Ltd. v. Akhter Jan & Ors.

2011-11-02

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2011
1. Since common question of law and controversy is involved in all three appeals, so I deem it proper to decide all these three appeals by a common judgment. 2. These three appeals are the outcome of a minor vehicular accident which was allegedly caused by one Dilawar Ahmad Bhat, driver of Tata Sumo, bearing Chassis No. 418071-G UGZ918976 Engine No. 483DF47-DWZ712499. He while driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently from Jammu to Srinagar met with an accident at Kayla Mode, Ramban, as a result of which the driver of the said vehicle along with three traveling in it, namely, Riyaz Ahmad Sofi, Special Officer in J&K Police, Shamim Ahmad Najar and Abdul Ahad Sheikh, Special Grade Constables in J&K Police sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. Claimants/legal heirs of said three deceased persons filed three claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pulwama, were allowed vide awards dated 03.06.2010, impugned herein and the insurer-appellant herein was saddled with the liability. Feeling aggrieved the insurer-appellant has questioned all the three awards by the medium of these three appeals on the ground that the offending vehicle was not insured at the relevant point of time, i.e., 28.01.2004 when the accident occurred. Brief Facts 3. Driver Dilawar Ahmad Bhat while driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently from Jammu to Srinagar lost control over the vehicle near Kayla Mode, Ramban and it feel into the river, resulting into the death of all the passengers/occupants of the vehicle on spot including its driver, Claimants/legal heirs of Riyaz Ahmad Sofi, Shamim Ahmad Najar and Abdul Ahad Sheikh filed three claim petitions, titled as, Akhter Jan & others Vs. Fayaz Ahmad Dar& another, File No. 04/CP of 2004; Masar,of Hameed & others Vs. Fayaz Ahmad Dar & another, File No. 03/CP of 2004 and Mst. Hafiza & others Vs. Fayaz Ahmad Dar & another, File No. 05/CP of 2004 on the ground that they being the legal heirs of deceased are entitled to get compensation as per the break-ups given in the claim petitions. 4. Issues came to be framed in all the three petitions. The learned Tribunal while allowing the claims petitions saddled the insurance company with the liability to pay compensation to the claimants in all the three petitions vide the impugned awards. 5. 4. Issues came to be framed in all the three petitions. The learned Tribunal while allowing the claims petitions saddled the insurance company with the liability to pay compensation to the claimants in all the three petitions vide the impugned awards. 5. By the medium of these appeals the insurer-appellant herein has questioned the awards to the extent of saddling of liability. 6. Mr. Kawoosa, learned counsel for appellant argued that on 28.01.2004, when the offending vehicle met with an accident, there was not contract between the insured-owner of offending vehicle and insurer-appellant. The insurer policy was executed on 29.01.2004 and from that date the insurer-appellant was liable and not from any date earlier to it. 7. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence held that admittedly the insurer-appellant had received the premium on 06.12.2003 by cash to the tune of Rs. 10449/- but policy was issued on 29.01.2004 after receiving the particulars, vis-a-vis registration number and chassis number of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal has held that virtually the insured-owner had paid premium before 28.01.2004 and thus insurer-appellant herein is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 8. In para (b) of the appeal, the appellant has admitted that it had received premium by cash on 06.12.2003 without the particulars of vehicle from the owner-respondent no. 2, namely, Fayaz Ahmad Dar and after receiving the particulars the insurance policy was issued on 29.01.2004. Thus it is admission on the part of the insurer-appellant that it had received the premium by cash from the owner of the offending vehicle much before the date of accident. 9. In the given circumstances, the only question for consideration is whether the findings returned by the Tribunal vis-a-vis saddling the appellant with liability is legally correct. The answer is affirmative for the following reasons. 10. The insurer-owner of the offending vehicle had taken all steps to get the vehicle insured. Admittedly he paid the premium to the tune of Rs. 10449/ - by cash on 06.12.2003. Virtually the contract came into force from the date. 11. The Apex Court in a similar set of circumstances in case Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dharam Chand, 2010 ACJ 2659 , has held that insurance must be deemed to have been commenced from the date cheque amount was received and insurance company is liable from that date. 12. Virtually the contract came into force from the date. 11. The Apex Court in a similar set of circumstances in case Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dharam Chand, 2010 ACJ 2659 , has held that insurance must be deemed to have been commenced from the date cheque amount was received and insurance company is liable from that date. 12. In the instant case, the payment was not paid by cheque but was paid in cash. It is apt to reproduce paras 4 and 5 of the said judgment herein: "4. The insurance company sought to disown its liability on the plea that the accident took place before the commencement of the insurance as indicated in the cover note. But, both the Tribunal and the High Court, turned down the plea and held the insurance company liable to pay the compensation amount. 5. When this appeal was taken up, the counsel for the insurance company very fairly stated that since the cheque for the premium amount was received by the company at 4. p.m. on 07.05.1998, the insurance must be deemed to have commenced from that time and four hours later when the vehicle met with the accident, the owner must be deemed to have been covered by the insurance policy. We appreciate the fairness shown by the counsel for the insurance company." 13. In the given circumstances, the only ground raised by the appellant in all the three appeals is devoid of any force. 14. Learned counsel for appellant has not .pressed into service any other ground. 15. In the given circumstances, all the three appeals merit to be dismissed along with CMPs and the impugned awards merit to be upheld. Ordered accordingly. 16. Record of all the three appeals along with a copy of this order be sent back forthwith.