Back
2018 Supreme(All) 1960
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ASHOK KUMAR, J.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
Kusum Devi And 8 Ors. - Respondents
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No.933 of 2018
Decided on : 09-08-2018A
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sushil Kumar Mehrotra
The judgment establishes that once the premium is paid, the insurance coverage is effective, and any attempt to evade obligations through conflicting documents constitutes forgery and misconduct.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Accident Claim - Insurance Act, 1938, Section 64VB
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was involved in a fatal accident while riding a motorcycle. The claimants filed a petition seeking compensation from the insurance company, which had issued conflicting insurance documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance company had issued conflicting insurance documents and attempted to evade its obligations. It directed the company to pay compensation to the claimants and conduct an inquiry into the misconduct.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the insurance coverage at the time of the accident, based on conflicting insurance documents issued by the insurance company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938, which stipulates that once the premium is paid, the risk is covered from the date of payment. The court found that the insurance company's actions constituted forgery, misconduct, and cheating.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the insurance company was directed to pay compensation to the claimants and conduct an inquiry into the misconduct.
Heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company.
2. The instant appeal arises out of the judgment and decree/award dated 05.05.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / District Judge, Siddharth Nagar in M.A.C.P. No. 62 of 2012, by which the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition by holding that the accident took place by a vehicle, which was insured with the appellant-insurance company when the accident took place.
3. The fact of the case are that on 17.05.2012 the deceased Ram Shubhag @ Pancham was going as a pillion rider on registered two wheeler (motorcycle) bearing no. U.P. 55A/9792 and when the said motorcycle was on way to his residence at about 10:00 a.m. suddenly a dog appeared on the road and to save the dog and due to dis-balance both the motorcycle rider sustained serious injuries, as they fell down and ultimately Shubhag @ Pancham died.
4. The claim petition is filed by the wife of the deceased and his six children. The claimants claimed that they are entitled to get the compensation of Rs. 9,32,800/- plus interest @ 15% per annum.
5. Only issue no. 2, is pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant for adjudication by this Court, which is quoted herein below:-
"Issue no. 2. foi{kh la[;k&2 chek dEiuh dh rjQ ls dksbZ Hkh ekSf[kd lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA vfHkys[kh; lk{; ds :i esa lwph 63x ls chek dEiuh }kjk fd;s x;s i=kpkj dh izekf.kr izfr;ka dkxt la[;k&64x@1 yxk;r 64x@4 nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA^^
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no dispute that the authorised agent of the appellant-insurance company, namely, "Sahaj Jansewa Kendra" has received the cash amount of insurance from the owner of the vehicle in question (vehicle motorcycle bearing no. U.P. 55A/9792) and the said agent has issued a 'certificate of insurance' which clearly indicates that the vehicle in question is insured vide receipt no. 89717 dated 12.05.2012 and is insured for a period of one year between 13.05.2012 to 12.05.2013.
7. Admittedly the vehicle in question was insured in between 13.05.2012 to 12.05.2013 and the date of accident is 17.05.2012.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on an insurance policy, which is allegedly issued by the appellant-insurance company in respect of the same vehicle, indicating therein that the validity of the insurance period of the vehicle in question is from 20.10.2012 to mid-night of 19.10.2013. These documents, namely, the 'certificate of insurance' and 'insurance policy' prepared by the authorised agent and appellant-insurance company are placed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has dealt with the documents and concluded that in fact the authorised agent of the insurance company has issued the 'certificate of insurance' after receiving the money in cash from the owner of the vehicle for a period between 13.05.2012 to 12.05.2013, therefore, the vehicle in question was duly insured when the accident took place on 17.05.2012.
9. In the aforesaid back ground, the impugned order has been passed by the Tribunal.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has placed reliance on a provision of Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938.
11. Sub Section (1) and (2) of Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 are referred by the learned counsel for the appellant, which are quoted herein below:-
"64VB. No risk to be assumed unless premium is received in advance.-(1) No insurer shall assume any risk in India in respect of any insurance business on which premium is not ordinarily payable outside India unless and until the premium payable is received by him or is guaranteed to be paid by such person in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed or unless and until deposit of such amount as may be prescribed, is made in advance in the prescribed manner.
(2) For purposes of this Section, in the case of risks for which premium can be ascertained in advance, the risk may be assumed not earlier than the date
