Back
2008 Supreme(Gau) 24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellants
Vs.
Nilima Nandi and Ors. – Respondent
Decided On: 09.01.2008
The effective time of an insurance policy as mentioned in the policy itself determines the liability of the Insurance Company for a motor accident.
Headnote:
Insurance Policy - Motor Accident - 2(45 PM of 16.07.91 - 1950 T.A.C. SC 133, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi (Smt.) and Ors. AIR 1997 SC 2147, Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd. v.Sunita Rathi and Ors. AIR 1997 SC 4228, National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chinto Devi (Smt) and Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 50, New India Insurance Co. v. Bhagwati Devi and Ors. (1998) 6 SCC 534
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/Insurance Company challenged the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, arguing that the compensation awarded for a motor accident should not be fastened to the Insurance Company as the accident occurred before the effective time of the insurance policy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident took place before the effective time of the insurance policy, and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for the compensation amount. The owner of the vehicle was directed to make the payment of compensation with interest, and the Insurance Company was allowed to recover the amount already paid as no fault liability from the owner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Insurance Company should be held liable for the compensation amount for a motor accident that occurred before the effective time of the insurance policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of the effective time of the insurance policy as mentioned in the insurance policy itself, and the previous judgments of the Apex Court in similar cases, to establish that the Insurance Policy would be effective from the time and date mentioned in the insurance policy itself.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of, directing the owner of the vehicle to make the payment of compensation with interest, and allowing the Insurance Company to recover the amount already paid as no fault liability from the owner.
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company as well as Ms. R. Lahkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents i.e. respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. None appears for the respondent No. 4, Sri Upen Chandra Bhuyan.
2. From the record of the present appeal it is clear that service of notice of present appeal to the respondent No. 4 had been properly effected. Over and above, Mr. S.K. Barkataki, learned Counsel had entered appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 4 by filing the Vakalatnama.
3. By this appeal, the appellant/Insurance Company is challenging the judgment and award dated 16.12.99 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darrang, Mangaldoi in MAC Case No. 2/92 only on one ground that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (one lack fifty thousand) awarded as compensation for the motor accident which took place on 16.07.91 should not be fasten to the appellant/Insurance Company, inasmuch as, the respondent No. 4, the owner of the offending vehicle having registration No. ASU 8927 had entered an Insurance Policy with the appellant/Insurance Company with effect from 2.45 PM of 16.07.91 and the said motor accident took place before 2.45 PM of 16.07.91.
4. The short facts which would be sufficient for deciding the present appeal are that the husband of the claimant/respondent No. 1 Sri Sibu Nandi was the handyman of the offending Bus bearing registration No. ASU 8927. When the Bus was plying on 16.07.91 had an accident near Balipukhuri on 16.07.91. As a result of the motor accident of the offending Bus, the appellant/husband succumbed to injuries.
5. Both the parties i.e. the appellant and respondent are not disputing the fact that the offending Bus having the registration No. ASU 8927 had accident on 16.07.91 and also the owner of the offending Bus had entered an Insurance Policy with the appellant/Insurance Company. Only the disputes in the present case were about the time of the said motor accident on 16.07.91 and also the coverage of the said motor accident by the new business policy which would be effective from 2.45 PM of 16.07.91. The claimant also had exhibited authenticated copy of the Insurance Policy as Ext. 3 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The claimant also exhibited another Insurance Policy as Ext. 4 which was valid upto 15.07.91.
6. On perusal of the Insurance Policy Ext. 3, it is crystal clear that the effective date and the hour of commencement of the policy is 2.45 PM of 16.07.91.
7. Regarding the time of motor accident which took place on 16.07.91, the appellant/Insurance Company had filed written statement before the Claims Tribunal stating that the said vehicular accident of the offending vehicle took place at 10 AM of 16.07.91. From the record, it appears that in support of the case of the appellant/Insurance Company, some documents including the report of the hospital Superintendent where the victim's husband was admitted and treated had been filed. As per the report of the hospital Superintendent which had been filed and exhibited as Ext. Gha, it appears that the victim husband was admitted to the hospital at 1.35 PM of 16.07.91. The claimant herself i.e. respondent No. 1, when she was examined as PW-1 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, stated that her husband was admitted to the hospital between 12.30 to 1.00 PM of 16.07.91.
8. From the statement of the PW-1 as well as from the said hospital record, it appears that the said accident took place before 2.45 PM on 16.07.91. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award dated 16.12.99 made a finding that as the insurance of the offending vehicle with the appellant/Insurance Company was only a renewal of the earlier policy on 16.07.91 at 2.45 PM, the continuity of the earlier policy can easily be presumed. For easy reference, the relevant finding of the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award dated 16.12.99 is quoted hereun
