Judgment:
This appeal is filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited which was the second respondent before the learned Tribunal below against the order dated 06.08.1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Adilabad in O.P.No.245 of 1996.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company. There is no representation for the respondents.
One Sakali Rajanna, an injured in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 25.04.1996 at 0.30 hours near Sofinagar Dargah at Nirmal town filed claim petition before the Tribunal below under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.50,000/- against which after making an enquiry, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- together with interest at 15% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. The learned Tribunal accepted the contention of the claimant that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing No. ABG-T-3695 and held that the first respondent who is the owner of the said vehicle and the appellant-insurance company with which the said vehicle was allegedly insured on the date of the accident are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant.
Challenge to the award by the insurance company is on the ground that the offending vehicle viz. jeep bearing No. ABG-T-3695 was not at all insured with it at material time and therefore, the learned Tribunal erroneously fastened the liability to pay compensation on it.
It requires to be noticed in this context that originally the claimant filed the claim against the United India Insurance Company Limited as the second respondent and after entering appearance, it filed counter stating that the offending vehicle was insured with it under a valid policy from 25.04.1996 to 24.04.1997 and after expiry of the said period, the policy was not renewed and therefore, it is not liable to pay compensation. After filing of the said counter, the claimant filed an application before the Tribunal below seeking impleadment of the appellant-insurance company as respondent contending that on the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was validly insured with the appellant-insurance company. The learned Tribunal allowed the said application and impleaded the appellant-insurance company as second respondent after striking down the name of the United India Insurance Company. Thus, the appellant-New India Assurance Company Limited came on record as second respondent in the original petition before the learned Tribunal below.
The claimant as well as the appellant-insurance company did not file the copy of policy of insurance before the Tribunal below. The Tribunal, however, relying on the receipt filed by the claimant which was issued by the appellant-insurance company evidencing receipt of payment of premium held that the offending vehicle was validly insured with the appellant-insurance company on the date of the accident and consequently fastened the liability on the appellant-insurance company to pay compensation to the claimant.
Now in this appeal it has been contended on behalf of the appellant-insurance company that at the time of enquiry before the Tribunal below, the copy of the policy of insurance was not traced and therefore, it could not be filed before the Tribunal. Now, in this appeal, the appellant-insurance company filed CMP No.13346 of 2002 to receive the copy of insurance policy as additional evidence. On being satisfied that the policy copy of insurance could not be secured by the appellant in spite of due diligence, the said petition is allowed and the policy copy of insurance is marked as Ex.B-1.
In the insurance policy, it is clearly mentioned that the commencement of insurance for the purpose of the Act is from 5.15 p.m. on 25.04.1996. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company would contend that when the time of commencement of insurance is specifically mentioned in the policy, it commences from that time and the date is not the criteria. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel in ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. SUNITA RATHI AND OTHERS (1998)1 SCC 365wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:
“There is express mention in the cover note that the effective date and time of commencement of the insurance for the purpose of the Act was 10/12/1991 at 2.55 p.m. The applicability of the decision in Ram Dayal case has to be considered on these facts. In our opinion the decision in Ram Dayal case is distinguishable and has no application to the facts of this case. The facts of that decision show that the time of issuance of the policy was not mentioned therein and the question, therefore, was of presumption when the date alone was mentioned and not the time at which the insurance was to become effective on that date. In such a situation, it was held in Ram Dayal case that in the absence of any specific time being mentioned, the logical inference to draw was that the insurance became effective from the previous midnight and, therefore, for an accident which took place on the date of the policy, the insurer became liable. There is no such difficulty in the present case in view of the clear finding based on undisputed facts that the accident occurred at 2.20 p.m. and the cover note was obtained only thereafter at 2.55 p.m. in which it was expressly mentioned that the effective date and time of commencement of the insurance for the purpose of the Act was 10/12/1991 at 2.55 p.m”.
The legal position is thus clear from the aforecited pronouncement of the Apex Court as to the effective time and date of commencement of the insurance. The Court can draw a presumption that the insurance commenced from the previous midnight when the date alone is mentioned in the policy. The Court can not draw any such presumption when both the date and time of commencement of insurance is specified in the policy. If the time of commencement of insurance is specified, the said time so specified alone governs the commencement of insurance without any scope for discretion of the Court.
In the case on hand, if we examine the overt acts of the claimant and also the way in which the petition for impleadment of the appellant-insurance company as respondent was filed, it was clearly demonstrate that after the accident, the policy was purposefully taken by the owner with a view to lay a false claim on the appellant-insurance company and it would appear that the owner in collusion with the claimant, in the first instance has made an attempt to lay a claim against the United India Insurance Company Limited with which the vehicle was insured from 25.03.1995 to 23.03.1996 and later the policy was expired and after a specific plea was taken by the United India Insurance Company in its counter that the policy was expired, the appellant-insurance company was impleaded as respondent in the claim petition. Normally, the owner of the vehicle would renew the policy with the insurance company with which the offending vehicle was originally insured. Since, in the instant case, the accident occurred in the interregnum period, the owner of the vehicle took a new policy without disclosing the accident. As is obvious from Ex.B-1 policy that the commencement of the insurance for the purpose of the Act would be effective from 5.15 p.m. on 25.04.1996 and the accident having been occurred at 1230 hours on 25.04.1996, it has to be held that the offending vehicle was not insured with the appellant-insurance company under Ex.B-1 policy. Therefore, the appellant-insurance company cannot be fastened with liability to pay any compensation.
For what all stated hereinabove, the finding of the Tribunal below that the second respondent-owner of the vehicle and the appellant-insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation is set aside and it is held that the second respondent-owner of the offending vehicle alone is liable to pay compensation to the claimant.Consequently, the appeal is allowed exonerating the insurance company from liability to pay compensation.There shall be no order as to costs.