United India Insurance Companay vs Mst. Sandhya Shukla
2022 Latest Caselaw 12373 MP

                                                                     1
                                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                            AT JABALPUR
                                                                   BEFORE
                                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                         ON THE 16th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                                                        MISC. APPEAL No. 1347 of 2012

                                            BETWEEN:-
                                            UNITED   INDIA  INSURANCE    COMPANY
                                            THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER DIVISION
                                            OFFICE REWA RAJKIRAN BUILDING 1454
                                            WRIGHT TOWN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....APPELLANT
                                            (BY SHRI D.N. SHUKLA, ADVOCATE)

                                            AND
                                       1.   MST. SANDHYA SHUKLA W/O LATE RAMESH
                                            CHANDRA SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
                                            VILL  HLAWAH   POST  BAIRHANA   TAH
                                            MANJHAON (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                       2.   VIPIN KUMAR SHUKLA S/O LATE RAMESH
                                            CHANDRA SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,
                                            OCCUPATION: THROUGH THEIR NATURAL
                                            MOTHER RES. NO. 1 VILLAGE HALAWAN POST
                                            BAIRHANA   TAHSIL    MANJHAON    SATNA
                                            (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                       3.   VINAY KUMAR SHUKLA S/O LATE RAMESH
                                            CHANDRA SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS,
                                            OCCUPATION:   MINOR    THROUGH   THE
                                            NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER RES NO. 1
                                            VILLAAGE HALAWAN POST BAIRHANA TAHSIL
                                            MANJHAON SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                       4.   NAVEEN KUMAR SHUKLA S/O LAATE RAMESH
                                            CHANDRA SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS,
                                            OCCUPATION: MINOR    THROUGH THEIR
                                            NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER RES NO. 1
                                            VILLAGE HALAWAN POST BAIRHANA TAHSIL
                                            MANJHAON SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified
  SAN                                  5.   FAROOQ BHAI S/O          SULEMAN SHERPURA
                                            B H A R O O C H DISTT.   BHAROOCH, GUJRAT
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
Date: 2022.09.16 20:19:30 IST
                                            (GUJARAT)
                                                                      2
                                       6.        SIKANDAR BHAI I. GANDHI CHABOOTRA
                                                 CHHANI DISTT. BADAUDA, GUJRAT (GUJARAT)

                                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                                                 (BY SHRI ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY, ADVOCATE)

                                             This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                                       following:
                                                                           ORDER

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved of award dated 01.02.2012 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satna in C.T. No.149/2005.

This appeal is filed on the ground that earlier an award was passed by learned Tribunal for an accident which took place on 09.02.2000. Non-applicant

Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte. Thereafter, an application was filed namely MJC No.367/2010 allowing application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC setting aside the earlier award dated 27.01.2009. Thereafter, case was contested on merits.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that cheque along with the proposal form were given on 08.02.2000, Policy was issued on 11.02.2000 and, therefore, for an accident which took place on 09.2.2000, liability could not have been fastened on the Insurance Company.

Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, in his turn, submits that Policy, ExD-1 is available on record. As per this policy (Ex.D-1), it is mentioned that policy was issued insuring Tata Mini Bus bearing Registration No.GJ 6U 9988 and it is mentioned in the Policy that Policy is effective from 00 hours of 09.02.2000 and is valid upto 08.02.2001. Thus, it is admitted that which Policy came into effect Signature Not Verified SAN at 00 hours on 09.02.2000 it means that it came into effect at the midnight of 08.02.2000 whereas admittedly accident as per the FIR (Ex.P-2), took place at Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN Date: 2022.09.16 20:19:30 IST

about 6.30 a.m., on NH.8 Jambosar Square deceased was hit by offending bus.

Issue is that when Policy was issued and what will be its period of effect. Supreme Court in J. Kalaivani and Others Vs. K. Sivashankar and Another, (2007) 7 SCC 792 , has held that if accident takes place during a few hours' interregnum between the expiry of the first policy and commencement of the next policy. First policy expiring by midnight of the specified dated. Second policy issued by the same insurer on the succeeding date specifically stating the time of commencement thereof at 10 a.m. Accident took place on the said succeeding date at 4.30 a.m. In such circumstances, the insurer, held, not liable in respect of the accident.

Thus, this judgment deals with the time of commencement of the Policy and says that claim is admissible only when accident takes place after commencement of the Policy which in the said case was 10 a.m..

Similarly, Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunita Rathi and Ors, (1998) 1 SCC 365, has held that in case accident takes place prior to issuance of the cover note then insurer is not liable.

Same is the ratio of Judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagwati Devi and Others, (1998) 6 SCC 534. When accident took place at 11 a.m. and Policy was obtained on the date of accident at 4 p.m., it is held that there was no contract of insurance at the time of the accident.

However, the fact of the matter is that in the present case, premium was collected on 08.02.2000, risk commenced at 00 hours from 09.2.2000 and accident took place after commencement of the risk and therefore, ground raised by the Insurance Company that coverage was not available at the time of Signature Not Verified SAN

the accident is not made out.

Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN Date: 2022.09.16 20:19:30 IST

Therefore, appeal deserves to fail and is hereby dismissed.

Record of the Tribunal be sent back.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Tabish

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN Date: 2022.09.16 20:19:30 IST