1.0 Though served none appears for the respondents No. 1 and 2.
Respondents No. 3 and 4 have refused the notice.
2.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 27.03.1992 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. III (Main), Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 467 of 1987 wherein the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the aforesaid claim petition by awarding compensation in the sum of Rs. 69000/ along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.
3.0 On 28.05.1986 at about 12.15 p.m. when one Mrugavel along with respondentapplicant no. 2 was crossing the road near Garden, one truck bearing registration No. GRR 5735 came from Railway Colony in excessive speed and dashed with Mrugavel. As a result of which he received injuries and subsequently died. The claimants therefore, filed the aforesaid claim petition wherein the learned Tribunal passed the aforesaid award which is challenged in the present appeal.
4.0 Learned advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal has committed error in discarding the proposal form which was produced before the Tribunal at Exh. 43, 44 and 45 from where it can be easily concluded that the contract in question was entered into the date of the accident at 2.00 P.M whereas the accident in question occurred at 12.15 on the very same day.
5.0 Learned advocate for the appellantInsurance company relied on the decision of the Hon'bel Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd versus Sobina Iakai and others reported in 2007 ACJ 2043 wherein in para 12 and 19 it is held as under:
“12. Admittedly, at the time when the accident had occurred at 9.15 a.m. on 20.07.1994, the respondent did not have the insurance cover. The insurance policy was obtained at 2 p.m. on 20.07.1994, which is clearly evident from the motor renewal endorsement set out in the earlier part of the judgement.
19.In order to curb this wiidespread mischief of getting insurance policies after the accidents, it is absolutely imperative to clearly hold that the effectiveness of the insurance policy would start from the time and date specifically incorporated in the policy and not from an earlier point of time. “
6.0 Learned advocate for the appellant contended that in view of the aforesaid decision, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.
7.0 Heard learned advocate for the appellant and perused the documents on record.
8.0 From the record it is found that the accident has occurred on 28.05.1986 at 12.15 p.m. In the accident the truck No. GRR 5735 involved in the accident was insured at 2.00 P.M. on 28.05.1986 whereas the accident occurred at about 12.15 P.M. on 28.05.1986. In support of its submission, the insurance company has examined the insurance agent, Vinodchandra Mohansinh, at Exh .43. He has stated that he is not serving in the insurance company, but he is an insurance agent. His code No. in the year 1986 was 01359 for the business purpose. On 28.05.1986, the partner of M/s Prominent Carriers by name, Surendrasing to who truck No. GRR 5735 is belonging, came about 2.00 P.M. in R.T.O office and met him. Surendrasing wanted to pay R.T.O tax and also wanted to take insurance for the said truck. The witness asked for necessary information from Surendrasingh to fill in the proposal form. Therefore, the said form was signed by said Shri Surendrapalsing. The original proposal form is on record at Exh. 44. He also prepared a cover note and the carbon copy of the said cover note is on record at Exh. 45. As per the cover note, Surendrasngh paid the premium of Exh. 438/ in cash to him at about 2.00 P.M. on 28.05.1986.
9.0 Further, in crossexamination by the claimants' advocate the witness has stated that he is visiting the insurance company daily in normal circumstances. 1st proposal form, the policy is covering the period from 28.05.1986 to 27.05.1987. The proposal form and cover note were prepared one after the other. He has admitted that he has not mentioned the time in the proposal form. The cover note book is supplied by the Insurance Company. He prepared four copies of the cover note, out of which original is given to the party two for the insurance company and the fourth copy remains in the book, He did not have any such book before 1989. However, he is ready to produce such copies for the period after 1989. He does not have any note to show that the original cover note is handed over to Surndrasingh. He denied the suggestion that no cover note was handed over to said Surendasingh. The witness has admitted that in Exh .45 which is a cover note the time of 2.00 p.m. is not written against the date 28.05.1986 but the said time is written against the date 27.05.1986. He also denied the figure ‘2” written in the date 28.05.1986 and 27.05.1987 appears distinctive than the figure “2” written in the time, he also denied the suggestion that time of 2.00 P.M was written at a later stage to help the insurance company.
10.0 In view of the above, it is found that the time when the accident had occurred at 12.15 p.m. on 28.05.1986 and at 12.15 p.m on 28.05.1986 the truck involved in the accident was not insured. The insurance policy was obtained at 2 p.m. on 28.05.1986, which is clearly evident from the evidence. Hence, in view of the principles laid down in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd versus Sobina Iakai and others (supra) in order to curb this wiidespread mischief of getting insurance policies after the accidents, it is absolutely imperative to clearly hold that the effectiveness of the insurance policy would start from the time and date specifically incorporated in the policy and not from an earlier point of time.
11.0 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgement and award qua Insurance Company is quashed and set aside. The amount, if paid by the Insurance Company, shall be returned to Insurance Company. It will be open to the insurance company to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle if the amount deposited by the appellant has already been withdrawn by the claimants. If the claimants , have not withdrawn the amount, it will be open for them to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. No order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*