The main legal point established in the judgment is that the effectiveness of the insurance policy is determined by the time and date mentioned in the policy, and in this case, the policy was not effective at the time of the accident.

JUDGMENT :

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Present appeal has been filed by the original respondent no.02 challenging the judgment and award passed in M.A.C.P. No. 39 of 2008, by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon, dated 09-06-2016, whereby claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, came to be allowed against the present appellant.

2. Present respondents no.01 to 04 had filed the said petition for getting compensation in connection with death of one Sahadu Jagannath Mali, who was the husband of claimant no.01 and father of claimants no.02 to 04, who expired in vehicular accident. Sahadu was proceeding with his friend on motorcycle bearing no. MH-19/AG-8827 at about 05.30 p.m. on 22-02-2007 from Bhortake to Bhadgaon. When they were near turn at Bhortake Fata, one Nitin Mohan Ingle, while driving Maruti Van bearing no. MH-19/Y1208, in negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle. The said Maruti van was owned by respondent no.01 and it is stated that it was insured with respondent no.02 on the date of the accident. Due to the injuries sustained in the said accident, Sahadu expired in a private dispensary at Chalisgaon. It is stated that Sahadu was 35 years old at that time, who was getting income of Rs.3,300/- per month. [Parties are referred as per their nomenclature before the Tribunal.]

3. Respondents no.01 and 02 filed their respective written statements separately and denied all the averments in the petition. The manner in which the accident took place, as narrated in the petition, was denied. So also, age, income and occupation of the deceased was denied specifically. The Insurance Company had taken a specific plea that the alleged accident took place at 05.30 p.m. on 22- 02-2007, however, respondent no.01 had approached the Insurance Company at about 06.10 p.m. on the same date and accordingly the insurance cover note was issued. Respondent no.01 has altered the timing as 16.10 p.m. by inserting number 1' by prefixing to 6.10' p.m. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that in fact, policy was obtained at 06.10 p.m. i.e. after the accident had occurred, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

4. After the issues were framed, the claimants as well as respondent no.02 has led oral as well as documentary evidence. Respondent no.01 has only produced the insurance policy which was in fact, taken by his predecessor owner. After appreciating the evidence, the learned Member has granted compensation of Rs. 4,59,000/- holding both the respondents liable jointly and severally to pay the said amount of compensation. It has been specifically held that the vehicle was insured when the accident took place. This fact is challenged in this appeal.

5. Heard learned Advocate Mr. D.P. Deshpande appearing for the appellant. Heard learned Advocate Mr. A.I. Deshmukh appearing for respondents no.02 to 4. So also, heard learned Advocate Mr. G.V. Wani appearing for respondent no.05.

6. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned Member failed to appreciate the evidence properly. He has given preference to photo-copy Exhibit 32 to come to the conclusion that the policy was taken at 16.10 p.m., whereas in fact, he ought to have given preference to Exhibit 43 which was the carbon copy of the cover note on which the timing is 06.10 p.m. The learned Tribunal failed to consider that at the time of accident, there was no insurance and therefore, respondent no.02, who had issued the cover note subsequently, cannot be saddled with amount of compensation. The risk covered under the insurance policy would run from the date and timing which has been put on the policy document.

7. Reliance has been placed on the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sobina Iakai and others, (2007) ACJ 2043 wherein note of catena of judgments of the Supreme Court were taken which laid down the ration that the policy would be effective from the time and date mentioned in the policy. I