Delhi High Court
Rawat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 8 July, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1992 (22) DRJ 226
Bench: V Eradi, A Vijayakar, Y Krishna, B Yadav
JUDGMENT
(1) The question for determination in this appeal against the order of the State Commission of Rajasthan is whether the Insurance Cover Note dated 18th June) 1988 was ctually issued after the accident to the vehicle which it insured or was it issued on the 16th of June, 1988 as stated in the Cover Note?
(2) After a comprehensive examination of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the State Commission of Rajasthan has come to conclusion that the Cover Note on the basis of which liability is sought to be fastened on the Respondent (Insurance Company), was not issued on 16th June, 1988 but that it was issued subsequently after the accident.
(3) The sallent facts are that a car was purchased by the Appellant- Complainant from the manufacturer M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd. Calcutta. The Gate Pass for the vehicle was issued by the manufacturer on 15th June, 1988. The vehicle was issued a temporary registration certificate on 16th June, 1988 and insurance is an essential precondition for granting a registration certificate.
(4) The Insurnce Cover dated 16th of June, 1988 was issued at Jaipur and was deposited with the Respondent Insurer on or after 3.8.1988.
THEaccident to the vehicle took place at Kachhawa in Mirzapur District (Uttar Pradesh) between 19th June and 20th June , The Insurance Cover Note said to have been issued on 16th June, 1988 suffers from the following defects :- (i) The Cover Note is for 'transit risk'. It left undefined whether the Insurnce is comprehensive or limited to third party transit risk only. (ii) No specific figure of the premium payable is mentioned in the Cover Note. It merely states 'As per tariff. In other words the nature of risk covered and the quantum of premium receivable by the Opposite Party therefore have not been stated in the Cover Note. Consequently there are reasons to doubt whether the respondent had legally underwritten the risk presuming that the insurance cover had been issued prior to the date of accident.
(5) There is evidence to indicate that the insurance cover had not been issued on 16the June, 1988. The Insurance cover had to be deposited within 24 hours with the nearest branch office of the Respondent and this was not done till 3.8.1988. The Appellant-Complainant has also admitted that he had not made any entry in the Insurnce account about the amount of premium in this case. In the insurnce office, the amount of premium receivable is debitble to the P.D. account of the agent who, in this case, is Shri Rawat the actual complainant on behalf of the Rawat Enterprises and this was not done as the Respondent had no occsion to do so. It is also in evidence that the factum of the accident having occurred on 19th - 20th June, 1988 ws also conveyed to the branch office of the Insurer on 3rd August, 1988. No information was furnished as to the place. When and where the accident occurred and under whose authority the vehicle, claimed to be covered by the Insurance, was removed from the site of the accident. This information has to be Sent to the nearest branch office of the Divisional Office of the insurer soon after the accident. There are other facts in evidence which have been pointed out in the Order of the State Commission which cast doubt about the genuineness of the claim of the complainant. But it is not necessary for us to go further into the details as the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, has been sifted by the State Commission carefully and rigorously. We are in agreement with the finding of the State Commission that the Insurance Cover Note, on the basis of which liability is sought to be fastened of the Opposite Party, was not issued on the 16th June, 1988 and that it was issued subsequenty after the accident had occurred.
(6) It is very significant to observe that Mr. Rawat the actual Complainant in this case is also the agent of the insurer who issued the insurance cover dated the 16th of June, 1988. Shri Ravikant Rawat who was an interested party, issued the insurance cover as Agent of the Insurer for the benefit of his Company (Complainant) after the accident had already taken place. The suggestion of the insurer that the vehicle was shown as insured on 16th of June, 1988 with a view to defraud the Opposite Party does not appear to be entirely without foundation. In the result we uphold the order of the State Commission and dismiss the appeal. The appellant should pay cost amounting to Rs. 2,000.00 to the respondent.
