IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 6104 OF 2018 VIJAYLAKSHMI & ORS. …APPELLANTS Versus BRANCH MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. …RESPONDENTS O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. By way of the present appeal, the appellants have challenged the order dated 14.11.2016 whereby the Madras High Court, in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company (R-1), modified the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter ‘Tribunal’), and absolved the Insurance Company (R-1) from liability to pay compensation.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Nirmala Negi Date: 2025.04.22 Reason:

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a)The appellants before this Court are the legal heirs/claimants of one Balakrishnan (hereinafter ‘deceased’) who met with an accident caused by a Van (hereinafter ‘offending vehicle’) on 27.10.2010 and died on 28.10.2010.

(b)The appellants instituted a claim petition where the Tribunal vide order dated 14.08.2012 passed an award in favour of the appellants granting them compensation of Rupees Twenty Lacs with interest. This compensation, as per the Tribunal’s order, was made payable by the Insurance Company (R-1), the owner(s)/driver (R-2 and R-3) of the offending vehicle.

(c)Dissatisfied with the order of the Tribunal, the Insurance Company (R-1) filed an appeal before the High Court. Vide impugned order dated 14.11.2016, the High Court allowed the appeal and absolved the Insurance Company (R-1) from liability to compensate the appellants. Now, appellants/claimants are before us.

4. The argument of the appellants before us is that when the accident occurred on 27.10.2010, the offending vehicle was covered by the insurance policy issued by the respondent no. 1 (Insurance Company) and thus, the Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability of compensating the appellants. On the contrary, the Insurance Company (R-1) would argue that the insurance policy commenced on 28.10.2010, whereas the accident occurred on 27.10.2010 and thus, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable.

5. The appellants suggest that respondent no.3 was the owner of the offending vehicle on the day of the accident and later, he transferred the vehicle to respondent no.2. However, we have been apprised at the Bar that these two respondents did not appear before the Tribunal or before the High Court. By an interim order dated 04.12.2024, this Court had directed the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul (Tamil Nadu) to trace these respondents as nobody entered appearance on their behalf despite notice. Subsequent to that direction, this Court was informed that these two persons had passed away after passing of the impugned order. Be that as it may, it does not preclude us from deciding upon the liability of Insurance Company (R-1), if any.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, as well as the learned counsel for the Insurance Company (R-1), and also perused the material on record.

7. In our opinion, the Tribunal was incorrect in holding respondent no.1 (Insurance Company) liable to pay compensation on the ground that although the Insurance Policy may have been issued on 28.10.2010, the premium was paid by respondent no.3 on 27.10.2010, prior to the occurrence of the accident. The High Court has rightly set aside the order of the Tribunal so far it fastened the liability on the Insurance Company because the day of submission of the premium cannot decide the commencement of the policy as the same should be determined by the contents of the policy since it is a special contract between the insurer and insured.

8. In its counter-affidavit, respondent no. 1 (Insurance Company) has submitted that the policy itself speaks about the effective date of commencement of insurance and the same is mentioned as “from 00:00 O' clock on 28.10.2010 to midnight of 27.10.2011”. We have also verified this fact after going through the policy, in the na