Uttarakhand High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Yashwanti Devi And Others on 14 August, 2025
2025:UHC:7186
Judgment Reserved on: 31.07.2025
Judgment Pronounced on:14.08.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Appeal from Order No.434 of 2019
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Yashwanti Devi and Others ...Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate along with Mr. Raunak Pant, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 4/claimants.
Mr. Girish Chandra Lakhchaura, Advocate for respondent nos.5 & 6/ owner & driver of
the vehicle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
The present appeal from order filed by the
Appellant-Insurance Company is directed against the
judgment and award dated 12.07.2019 passed by
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ 3rd Additional District
Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Claim Petition No.131 of
2018, "Smt. Yashwanti Devi & Others Vs. Varun Dixit &
Others". By the said order, the Claim Petition filed by
the claimants/ respondent nos.1 to 4 was allowed and a
sum of ₹3,94,000/- along with simple interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of filing claim petition till the
date of actual payment is awarded in favour of the
claimants.
2025:UHC:7186
2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the
claimants are that, on 07.02.2018, husband of
respondent no.1/claimant, Late Shri Gainda Singh, who
was a labour, was going for work along with Rinku and
Udayvir Singh. A tourist bus bearing no.UP-22 AT-0403,
which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner
hit cycle of husband of respondent no.1/ claimant.
Husband of respondent no.1/claimant was taken to
hospital but he died on his way to hospital. The post
mortem was conducted at Government Hospital,
Bijnaur on 08.02.2018 and FIR was registered against
driver of the offending vehicle at Kotwali Afzalgarh. It
was contended that the deceased was 42 years old and
was earning ₹10,000/- per month, as such, a claim of
₹27,00,000/- was raised.
3. Owner and driver of the offending vehicle
filed their written statement and denied the fact that
the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and
negligently. Owner of the offending vehicle (respondent
no.5) submitted that vehicle was having all the relevant
valid documents; was insured with the appellant and
liability to pay the claim was of the insurance company.
4. Driver of the vehicle / respondent no.6
contended that he was having the valid driving license
and the bus was not being driven in a rash and
negligent manner and the accident did not occur from
his bus. The appellant/respondent no.3 in the claim
petition, filed its reply and contended that there was no
2025:UHC:7186
cause of action against the insurance company as there
was no compliance of Section 64-VB of the Insurance
Act. It was also contended that the insurance policy
was issued on 07.02.2018 at 10:35 a.m. and the
accident occurred on the same day at 8:30 a.m., as
such, the vehicle was not insured at the time of
accident and the liability was of the owner.
5. Learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal
framed the following issues with regard to the
accident:-
1) Whether on 07.02.2018 when Gainda
Singh along with Rinku was going for labour
work then at 8:30 a.m. the driver of vehicle
No.UP 22 AT 0403 who was driving the bus
rashly and negligently hit the bye cycle of
Gainda Singh due to which he suffered
serious injury and while taking to hospital he
died?
2) Whether the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the deceased?
3) Whether the driver of the vehicle was
having valid driving license and other
documents and whether the vehicle was
insured?
4) Whether the claimants are entitled to any
compensation? if yes, then the quantum of
compensation?
6. Learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, on
2025:UHC:7186
the basis of the evidence recorded before it, came to a
conclusion that the accident took place on 07.02.2018
at 8:30 a.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle and there was no negligence on
behalf of the deceased. The issue no.1 and 2 was
decided in favour of the claimants and against
respondent nos.5 and 6, who are owner and driver of
the offending vehicle. This Court does not find any
perversity in the said finding of the learned Motor
Accident Claim Tribunal. Moreover, there is no challenge
to the said finding by the appellant or respondent no.5
and 6. So far as issue no.3,4 and 5 are concerned, the
learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal concluded that
the vehicle was insured with the appellant/insurance
company and the claimants are entitled for
compensation from the insurance company.
7. Insurance company has filed the present
appeal on the ground that the offending vehicle was not
insured with the appellant/insurance company and, as
such, there was no liability of the appellant/insurance
company to pay the compensation. It was pleaded in
the written statement that the proposal of the vehicle
was prepared on 07.02.2018 at 10:30 a.m. and the
insurance policy was issued at 10:35 a.m. on the same
date. The appellant, as such, contended that such
specific stand taken in the written statement was not
considered by the learned Tribunal.
8. The learned Tribunal took note of statement
2025:UHC:7186
of DW1 Ravikrishan Garg, who was serving in the
insurance company, he had stated that owner of vehicle
Varun Dixit came to his home at 8:00 a.m.
with Bus bearing No.UP-22A T0403 Chasis
No.MB1PCEHD7GEAV4690 and insurance of the said
vehicle was done by the appellant/insurance company.
Learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that statement
of Ravi Krishan Garg was not disputed by the
appellant/insurance company and, as such, the same
cannot be discarded and it was held that the premium
was received on behalf of the company and that the
vehicle in question was insured.
9. Learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to
4/claimants and learned counsel for respondent nos.5
and 6 (owner and driver of the offending vehicle
respectively) supported the judgment passed by
learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal and placed
reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Dharam Chand reported in 2010 (15) SCC 141 and
the judgment passed by High Court of Orissa at Cuttack
in the case of Smt. Renuka Sethi and Others Vs.
Babu Sahu and Another in FAO No.480 of 2012.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance
company placed reliance on the judgment passed by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Sobina Iakai (Smt.) and Others
reported in (2007) 7 SCC 786 and contended that as
2025:UHC:7186
the insurance proposal was issued on 07.02.2018 at
10:30 a.m. and the insurance policy was issued on
07.02.2018 at 10:35 a.m. after the premium was
received, as such, the policy became operative from the
time and date as incorporated in the insurance policy
and the effectiveness of the policy would start from the
time and date mentioned in the policy and not from the
earlier point of time.
11. On the basis of rival contentions raised by the
parties, the following issue arise for determination
before this Court:-
1) Whether the respondents/claimants were
entitled to any compensation from the
insurance company, if the accident occurred
on 07.02.2018 at 8:30 a.m. and if the policy
was issued on 07.02.2018 mentioning the
commencement of the policy from 10:35
a.m.?
12 The statement of Ravi Krishan Garg,
employee of the Insurance Company makes a reference
that the bus owner visited his house on 07.02.2018 at
8:00 a.m. and insurance of the vehicle was done by his
insurance company. There is no mention whether the
premium was received by him at the same time and
there was no suggestion from the claimants that the
said premium was received on 8:00 a.m. and the policy
was issued at the said time.
2025:UHC:7186
13. More surprisingly, there was no statement
recorded by Shri Ravi Krishan Garg only the cross-
examination is recorded. However, it is not clear who
examined Shri Ravi Krishan Garg and whether any
cross-examination could be held in absence of any
statement recorded by Shri Ravi Krishan Garg. The
document (Paper No.49B) which refers to the alleged
statement of Ravi Krishan Garg is extracted below:-
14. Paper No.49B (49 Kha) read as under:
",eå,ålhåihå laå 131@2018 MhåMCyw0&1
;'koUrh nsoh cuke o:.k nhf{kr fnå 19-06-2019
uke xokg jfo --".k xxZ iqå Loå Jh thådså xxZ mez 58 o"kZ
is'kk lfoZl bu ba';ksjsal daiuh fuoklh dk'khiqj ;qukbZVsM bafM;k
ba';ksjsal daiuh
ftjg
xkM+h laå ;qåih022 ,Vh&0403 lqcg yxHkx 8 cts fnukad 07-02-2018
esjs ?kj cl ysdj ekfyd o:.k nhf{kr vk;s FksA cl laå ;wåihå 22
,Vh 0403 ftldk psfpl laå MB1PCEHD7GEAV4690 gS ftldk
ba';ksjsal esjh daiuh }kjk fd;k x;kA
;g dguk xyr gS fd eS çkFkhZ ;k cl ekfyd ls gelkt gksdj
;k futh Qk;nk mBkus ds mís'; ls >wBh xokgh ns jgk gwaA
;g dguk Hkh xyr gS fd o:.k nhf{kr }kjk cl dk ba';ksjsal
djkus esa iSlk vnk u fd;k x;k gksA
lqudj rLnhd fd;k x;kA"
15. Thus it is clear that there is no mention of the
time as to when premium was received by Ravi Krishan
Garg. The insurance company's proposal form bears the
endorsement of its issuance on 07.02.2018 at 10:30
a.m. and the certificate of insurance which depicts
effective date for commencement of insurance for the
purpose of the Act endorses the date of 07.02.2018
and time is 10:35 hours. The said documents were
marked as Paper No.48C-3 (48Ga/3) and 48-C4
(48Ga/4). Thus, the Court is of the opinion that learned
2025:UHC:7186
Tribunal fell into error while placing reliance on the
statement of Ravi Krishan Garg and failed to take
notice of the documents Paper No.48C-3 and 48-C4
which clearly reveal the effectiveness of the insurance
policy.
16. The reliance placed by learned counsel for
respondent nos.1 to 4/claimants on the judgment
passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dharam Chand
reported in 2010 (15) SCC 141 and the judgment
passed by High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in the case of
Smt. Renuka Sethi and Others Vs. Babu Sahu and
Another in FAO No.480 of 2012 (supra) is
misplaced as the facts of aforesaid cases were different
as in the aforesaid case decided by the Hon'ble Apex
Court the cover note was issued on 07.05.1998 at 4:00
p.m., however, the date of commencement was
mentioned as 08.05.1998 and as such the counsel for
the insurance company has stated that as the premium
was received on 07.05.1998 through cheque as such
the commencement date would be of 07.05.1998
whereas in the present case it is the specific case of the
insurance company that proposal form was issued on
07.02.2018 at 10:30 a.m. and insurance policy was
issued at 10:35 a.m.
17. The issue as to when the policy becomes
operative was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sobina
2025:UHC:7186
Iakai (Smt.) and Others (supra) wherein it was held
as under:-
"12. Admittedly, at the time when the accident
had occurred at 9.15 a.m. on 20-7-1994, the
respondent did not have the insurance cover. The
insurance policy was obtained at 2.00 p.m. on 20-7-
1994, which is clearly evident from the motor
renewal endorsement set out in the earlier part of
the judgment.
13. The insurance policy and the motor renewal
endorsement were on record. Both these documents
were produced and proved by the appellant
Company. The Tribunal and the High Court have
seriously erred in ignoring these basic and vital
documents and deciding the case against the
appellant Company on the ground of non-production
of the cashier and development officer. This
manifestly erroneous approach of the High Court has
led to serious miscarriage of justice.
14. This Court had an occasion to examine the
similar controversy in New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. v. Ram Dayal [(1990) 2 SCC 680 : 1990 SCC
(Cri) 432 : (1990) 2 SCR 570] . In this case, this
Court held that in absence of any specific time
mentioned in the policy, the contract would be
operative from the midnight of the day by operations
of the provisions of the General Clauses Act but in
view of the special contract mentioned in the
insurance policy, the effectiveness of the policy
would start from the time and date indicated in the
policy.
15. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi [(1997)
1 SCC 66] has held that in the absence of any
specific time mentioned in that behalf, the contract
would be operative from the midnight of the day by
operation of provisions of the General Clauses Act.
But in view of the special contract mentioned in the
insurance policy, it would be operative from the time
and date the insurance policy was taken. In that
case, the insurance policy was taken at 4.00 p.m. on
25-10-1983 and the accident had occurred earlier
thereto. This Court held (at SCC p. 67, para 3) that
"the insurance coverage would not enable the
claimant to seek recovery of the amount from the
appellant Company".
16. Another three-Judge Bench of this Court
in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi [(1998)
1 SCC 365] dealt with similar facts. In this case, the
accident occurred at 2.20 p.m. and the cover note
2025:UHC:7186
was obtained only thereafter at 2.55 p.m. The Court
observed that the policy would be effective from the
time and date mentioned in the policy.
17. In New India Assurance Co. v. Bhagwati
Devi [(1998) 6 SCC 534] this Court observed that, in
absence of any specific time and date, the insurance
policy becomes operative from the previous
midnight. But when the specific time and date is
mentioned, then the insurance policy becomes
effective from that point of time. This Court in New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sita Bai [(1999) 7 SCC
575 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1322] and National Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Chinto Devi [(2000) 7 SCC 50 : 2000 SCC
(Cri) 1272] has taken the same view.
18. In J. Kalaivani v. K. Sivashankar [(2007) 7
SCC 792 : JT (2001) 10 SC 396] this Court has
reiterated clear enunciation of law. The Court
observed that it is the obligation of the court to look
into the contract of insurance to discern whether any
particular time has been specified for
commencement or expiry of the policy. A very large
number of cases have come to our notice where
insurance policies are taken immediately after the
accidents to get compensation in a clandestine
manner.
19. In order to curb this widespread 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."
18. In view of the discussion made above, it is
held that learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal erred
while coming to the conclusion that the vehicle in
question was having valid insurance cover. Thus the
respondent nos.1 to 4/ claimants were not entitled to
any compensation from the insurance company. The
appeal by the insurance company is allowed and the
order passed by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal
is set aside so far as it relates to the direction issued
for payment of compensation to the claimants from the
insurance company. The statutory deposit made by the
2025:UHC:7186
Insurance Company before this Court be released in
favour of the appellant/Insurance Company. The
records of the trial be sent back to the Motor Accident
Claim Tribunal concerned.
19. Respondent nos.1 to 4/ claimants would be
entitled for the compensation as determined by the
learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal from the owner
i.e. respondent no.5. Respondent no.5 is directed to
pay the compensation of ₹3,94,000/- along with simple
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing claim
petition to the claimants in the ratio as determined by
the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ IIIrd
Additional District Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham
Singh Nagar.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.)
14.08.2025
Sukhbant
SUKHBANT
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129a8a638
SINGH
0d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B7D72C
42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH
Date: 2025.08.14 14:03:16 +05'30'
