( 1 ) BY consent of parties the appeal, application for stay and the application for interim relief filed by the respondents-claimants all are taken up to-day for final disposal treating them as on day's list.

( 2 ) THE short point involved in this appeal filed by the Insurance Company is about the liability of the appellant to satisfy the interim Award of Rs. 25,000/- passed under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. , 1988.

( 3 ) THE husband of the respondent No. 1 Lakshi Pramanick died in a motor accident which took place on February 1, 1993. The death occurred at 8. 30 a. m. on that day. The offending vehicle admittedly was not covered by any insurance policy as at the time of the accident. The insurance policy was taken out by the owner of the offending vehicle on the date of the accident. The policy clearly mentions that the period of insurance would commence from 10, a. m. on February 1, 1993 and would expire on the midnight of January 31, 1994. The learned tribunal, however, rejected the contention of the appellant about it not being liable on the aforesaid ground; hence the present appeal.

( 4 ) THE learned Tribunal while fasting the liability under section 140 of the Act upon the appelant-Insurance Company relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal and Ors. , reported in 1990 (II) ACJ 545. In this judgment Their Lordships took a view that the insurance policy obtained on the date of accident became operative from the commencement of the date of insurance, that is, from the previous midnight and since the accident took place on the date of the policy, the insurer became liable. In two subsequent judgments, however, the Supreme Court clarified the judgment in Ram Dayal's case (supra) by holding that the aforesaid proposition of law would be applicable if the insurance policy did not specify the time of the commencement of the policy.

( 5 ) IN the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi (Smt.) and others, reported in 1997 (1) SCC 66 while refering to the judgment in Ram Dayal's case (supra) Their Lordhips clearly held that the provisions of General Clauses Act cannot be applicable in the case in view of the special contract mentioned in the insurance policy, namely, that it would be operative from a particular time. Paragraph of the said judgment reads as follows:"this court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal had held that in the absence of any specific time mentioned in that behalf, the contract would be operative from the midnight of the day by operation of provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897. But in view of the special contract mentioned in the insurance policy, namely, it would be operative from 4. 00 p. m. on 25. 10. 83 and the accident had occurred earlier thereto, the insurance coverage would not enable the claimant to seek recovery of the amount from the appellant-Company ?"

( 6 ) IN the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi, reported in AIR 1998 SC 257 once again the Supreme Court, while dealing with the question of liability of the Insurance Company in the case like the present one, and while noticing Ram Gopal's judgment and critically analysing it in details clearly held that if the policy of insurance mentions the time of commencement of insurance, the ratio of the Ram Dayal's case (supra) being wholly distinguishable, cannot be applicalbe. While distinguishing Ram Dayal's case (supra) Their Lordships clearly held that' the facts of that decision showed that the time of issurance of the policy was not mentioned therein and the question, therefore, was of presumption when the date alone was mentioned and not the time at which the insurance was to become effective on that date. The following observations in Sunita Rathi's case (supra) are quoted hereunder for advantage :"in such a situation, it was held in Ram Dayal's case (supra) that in the absence of any specific time being mentioned, the l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document