BHAWANI SINGH, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award dated 24. 12. 99 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Sarguja in Claim Case No. 87 of 1998.

( 2 ) THE accident took place on 1 5. 1998 in which Budharobai died and allegation is that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by Ajay Kumar. Defence taken is that the vehicle was not insured with the appellant national Insurance Co. Ltd. at the relevant time; therefore, there was no liability of the appellant to pay the compensation.

( 3 ) THE Tribunal on evidence adduced before it came to the conclusion that the vehicle was insured since the amount of premium had been paid to one B. N. Khare, inspector/agent of the appellant two days before the accident. Therefore the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,20,000 to the claimants with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of payment.

( 4 ) MR. S. K. Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that there is no contract of insurance between the parties, therefore, the appellant is not liable to suffer the liability. To substantiate this contention, the learned counsel submitted that there was no policy of insurance in this case. He further submitted that Khare did not work for the appellant, therefore, the receipt produced by the claimants is not a genuine document.

( 5 ) WE have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant but we are unable to appreciate the same. The contention that Khare was not acting for the appellant was not raised before Tribunal; therefore, it cannot be accepted. Khare was Inspector of the appellant, therefore, he received the amount of premium in the name of the appellant. Whether he deposited the amount of premium with the appellant or not, the claimants are not concerned with it. The amount was paid before the accident took place and issuance of insurance policy was to take sometime and in the meantime the accident took place. Once the premium amount had been paid, issuance of insurance policy was to follow as a matter of course. Simply because the policy had not actually been issued at the time the accident took place within two days of the deposit of premium, that would not mean that there is no privity of contract between the parties. We feel, in the facts of the case, whatever was in the hands of the insured, that was done and it was for the appellant to issue the insurance policy. The receipt adduced by the claimants in the case demonstrates that the premium was paid. The appellant neither took this defence nor took up the plea while cross-examining the witnesses in the case.

( 6 ) IN the aforesaid background, we find no substance in the case and, consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document