( 1 ) THESE appeals are directed against the judgment dated 4. 10. 1999 passed by the Gauhati High Court in ma (F) Nos. 3 (SH) and 4 (SH) of 1998.

( 2 ) THE facts of both these appeals are identical, therefore, these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Civil Appeal No. 1394 of 2001 are recapitulated.

( 3 ) THE question which falls for adjudication in these appeals is whether the insurance company can be held liable for payment of compensation for a period when the insurance policy was not even in existence.

( 4 ) THE appellant, National Insurance Co. Ltd. originally issued an insurance policy to the respondent bearing no. 201002/31/92/63/00057 on 22. 6. 1992 at 12. 45 p. m. ; this policy expired on 21. 6. 1993. This policy was renewed after 9 days of its expiry on 30. 6. 1993 and the said policy also expired on 29. 6. 1994. After 21 days of the expiry of the said insurance policy, the Bus bearing registration number ML-04-2741 met with an accident at about 9. 15 a. m. on 20. 7. 1994 killing two persons. One died on the spot and another died after a few days in the hospital. Admittedly, in the present case, the insurance policy was renewed on 20. 7. 1994 at 2. 00 p. m. whereas the accident had occurred at 9:15 a. m. on 20. 7. 1994. The time is specifically mentioned in the document called "motor Renewal Endorsement". It is incorporated in this document that the policy is renewed for twelve months from 20. 7. 1994 (2. 00 p. m.) to 19. 7. 1995. Since the entire controversy revolves around the time of the renewal endorsement, therefore, we deem it appropriate to fully set out the "motor Renewal Endorsement" as under:

MOTOR RENEWAL ENDORSEMENT

Endorsement no. E/94/00095 on Policy No. 201002/31/92/63/00057 Insured: ???? M. C. A. B. Martiang , a/c. Shri Eklensing Siangshai

Address: ?? Ummulong , Jaintia Hills Distt.

? It is hereby declared and agreed that the insurance by this Policy is renewed for a period of twelve months from 20-07-94 ( 2 p. m. ) to 19-07-95 at a premium of Rs. 7641/ - ? as detailed below:

The Vehicles

Make & year Registration

Of manufacture

Mark & No.

Type of

Body &

C. C.

Seating capacity

Including driver or carrying

capacity

Insured?s estimated value including

accessories

(Indian Currency)

Tata Bus,

1992

ML-2741 Bus body, 28+2 Rs. 3,00,000/-

31. 5

Premium Computation:

a. Act/t. P. Own Damage Rs . ? 450. 00 b. Own damage IEV Rs. 3,450. 00 c. Rs. 3,900. 00 d. 28 passengers Rs. 3,080. 00 e. Act, D/c Rs . ? 680. 00 f. Rs. 7,660. 00 Less 5% S. D Rs . ? 383. 00 Rs. 7,277.00 Add 5% S. T Rs . ? 363. 85 Rs. 7,640. 85 Net = Rs. 7,641/- Sd /-Divisional/branch Manager.

( 5 ) IN the aforementioned "motor Renewal endorsement", the time and date have been specifically mentioned. According to the appellant, in view of the special nature of contract, the insurance policy came into force only from 2. 00 p. m. on 20. 7. 1994.

( 6 ) A claim petition for Rs. 1,78,000/- plus interest @ 12% per annum was filed in the Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Jowai. The appellant company filed a written statement wherein it was specifically pleaded that the policy was not current at the time of accident. The relevant paragraph of the written statement reads as under:

"that the policy was not current at the time of accident. The vehicle was re-insured after a lapse of about 3 weeks on 20. 7. 94 at about 2. 00 p. m. whereas the alleged accident occurred on the same day at 9. 15 a. m. As such the opposite party (Insurance Co.) is not liable for any payment to claimant. Copy of insurance certificate is enclosed. "

( 7 ) THE Motor Accident Claims Tribunal allowed the claim petition ignoring the specific terms of the insurance policy and averments of the written statement filed by the appellant company. The Tribunal also ignored the settled legal position as crystallized by a series of judgment