A policy of insurance becomes operative from the previous midnight when bought during the day following, in the absence of a contract to the contrary. If there is a mention of a specific time of its purchase, then a special contract to the contrary comes into being and the policy would be effective from the mentioned time.

JUDGMENT

Ninala Jayasurya, J. - Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 30.07.2004 in M.V.O.P.No.173 of 2003 passed by the V Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court)-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurnool (herein after referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') , the present appeal has been preferred by the insurance company.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Claims Tribunal in the original petition.

3. The petitioner/claimant one Mr.Harijana Parameswarudu @ Paramesh seeking compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 26.12.2002, filed the claim petition in M.V.O.P.No.173 of 2003. In the said petition, it is averred that on 26.12.2002 at about 4-00 a.m., when the petitioner and others were proceeding in an auto bearing No.AP21-T-7638 towards A.Gokulapadu village, a lorry bearing No.AP16-TT-767 driven in a rash and negligent manner came in the opposite direction, dashed against the auto and as a result of the accident, the petitioner and two others sustained multiple and grievous injuries.

4. The 1st respondent-owner of the lorry remained exparte. The 2nd respondent-insurance company filed its counter inter alia stating that the lorry bearing No.AP16-TT-767 was not involved in any accident much less on 26.12.2002, the petitioner/claimant in collusion with the police officials have falsely implicated the said lorry in the accident and infact as per the First Information Report, the crime vehicle was AP10-T-768. It was further stated that the 1st respondent by suppressing the fact that the lorry bearing No.AP16-TT-767 was involved in the accident has issued a cheque on 26/12/2002 and accordingly, a cover note No.952861 dated 26/12/2002 was issued at about 7-45 p.m., and further that the said cheque was dishonoured and after due intimation to the 1st respondent, cancelled also. Subsequently, the 1st respondent again insured his vehicle by paying the amount through Demand Draft on 18/01/2003 and as such the 2nd respondent issued a fresh cover note on 19/01/2003 covering the period from 19/01/2003 to 18/01/2004. The 2nd respondent, accordingly, denied the liability of the insurance company as the material facts were suppressed and that the policy was not effective as on the date of accident.

5. On the basis of pleadings, the Claims Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.AP16-TT-767(10 tyres lorry)?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3) To what result?

6. In support of his case, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the insurance company, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B7 have been marked.

7. The Claims Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence, answered the issues in favour of the petitioner/claimant and partly allowed the claim by awarding a sum of Rs.16,567/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. Against the said award and decree, the instant appeal is preferred.

8. While reiterating the grounds raised in the appeal, the learned counsel for the insurance company contends that the 1st respondent-owner of the vehicle suppressed the material facts with regard to occurrence of the accident on 26/12/2002 in the early hours, approached the insurance company on the same day evening and obtained the policy of insurance by issuing a cheque dated 26/12/2002. He further submits that even the said cheque was returned on the ground of 'insufficient funds' and therefore the insurance company cancelled the policy as the issuance of cover note and the consequential policy are subject to realization of the cheque. He further submits that the 1st respondent in view of the dishonor of the cheque, paid the premiu