The specificity of the insurance contract is crucial in determining the commencement of risk and the liability of the insurance company.

Mr. Justice M.S. Parikh, President—In all the three appeals common questions are involved and, therefore, they are taken up for final disposal by this common order. They arise from the orders passed by the Mehsana District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Case Nos. 343/1994, 344/1994 and 345/1994 decided on 12th March, 2001 by common order.

2. It was the case of the respective complainants before the learned Forum that the Shop Keepers’ Insurance were taken up by the respective complainants by giving cheque on 8th December, 1992 and the complainants came to know about the shops having been looted in riots, occurring on 8th December, 1992, in the morning of 9th December, 1992. The losses were assessed as per the Surveyor’s report in each of the matters as alleged in the complaint.

3. The opponent disowned the liability on the ground that there was no insurance cover for 8th December, 1992 and the risk started from 1.30 in the afternoon of 9th December, 1992. Learned Forum adverted to the provision contained in Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 and the decision of Apex Court reported in 1990(2) SCC page 680, saying that the policy would be effective from midnight of the day from which the policy is to commence covering risk. Learned Forum has also noted the argument that when there is a special contract between the parties the risk would commence as per such special contract. Learned Forum has made reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case reported in 1997 (2) G.L.R. Supreme Court (S.C.) page 170, but has observed that decision would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Under such circumstances learned Forum directed payment of insurance amount in the respective complaints coupled with compensation and cost.

4. When these appeals came up for hearing yesterday no one remained present for the respondents, original complainants. We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant Insurance Company (original opponent). In our considered opinion learned Forum clearly appears to have by-passed the main principle of law to the effect that whenever there is a specific contract it has to be given effect to unless it is void or voidable and avoided. The decision which has been referred to on behalf of the opponent Insurance Company would need to be considered in the context of this basic principle of law.

5. There appears some error in the citation appearing in the copy of impugned order produced in these appeals. The citation 1997 (2) G.L.R. 170 (S.C.) appears to be out of context. We would, however, refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harshad J. Shah & Anr. v. L.I.C. of India & Ors., reported in 1997 (2) G.L.R. p. 1577. Provisions of Sections 187 and 237 of the Contract Act and Section 49 of Life Insurance Corporation Act (31 of 1956) were under consideration in that case in the context of these facts :

“Jashwantrai G. Shah, the husband of appellant No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as `the insured’) took out four insurance policies for Rs. 25,000/- each with double accidental benefits on March 6, 1986 through Shri Chaturbhuj H. Shah (respondent No. 3) who was a general agent of the L.I.C. (respondent No. 1). Premium under the said policies was payable on half-yearly basis. The insured deposited the first half-yearly premium on March 6, 1986 and the second half-yearly premium was deposited on September 6, 1986. The third half-yearly premium fell due on March 6, 1987 but it was not deposited within the prescribed period. On June 4, 1987 respondent No. 3 met the insured and obtained from him a bearer cheque dated June 4, 1987 for Rs. 2,730/- drawn on Union Bank of India, Malad, Bombay, towards the half-yearly premium on all the four policies. The cheque was encashed by the son of respondent No. 3 on June 5, 1987. The said amount of premium was deposited by respondent No. 3 with the L.I.C. on August 10, 1987. In the meanwhile on August 9, 1987 the insured met with a fatal a