UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO BANGALORE Vs. KALAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the facts of this appeal presented by the united India insurance company demonstrates that the insurance company has to safeguard itself against the acts ofits own agents and officers in order to avoid the foisting of non-existent liabilityagainst it:

(2.) the brief facts of the case which are disturbing are these: the lorry bear in gregistration No. Mez 4578 belonging to the 5th respondent met with an accident at6.30 a.m. on 7-5-1984. Respondents 1 to 4 filed a claim petition before the tribunalon the allegation that the husband of the first claimant and the father of claimants 2to 4 died in the motor accident. The appellant-insurance company was made as arespondent in the claim petition and it was alleged that at the time when the vehiclemet with the accident it was covered by an insurance policy issued by the appellant.before the tribunal, on behalf of the insurance company, the only evidenceadduced was the policy of insurance dated 7-5-1984.for the period commencingfrom 7-5-1984 to 6-5-1985. The tribunal proceeded on the basis, that as the policywas dated 7-5-1984 the insurance must be dcemed to have existed at the time of theaccident. Accordingly, the liability to pay the amount of compensation was fixed onthe insurance company.

(3.) this matter was heard on 9th january, 1989. At that time, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company that the original records inthe office of the insurance company disclosed that the proposal forms seeking toinsure the vehicle in question was given to the 5th respondent only on 9.30 a.m. on7-5-1984 i.e., after the accident and only after the receipt of the application the covernote was issued. In support of the above he had produced the carbon copy of thecover note. Learned counsel had submitted that some fraud had been played on theinsurance company by their agent and the owner of the vehicle appears to be a partyto it. On a comparison of the carbon copy of the cover note and the original covernote which had been produced by the owner-the 5th respondent, it was found thatwhile the printed numbers on both the original and carbon copy were the same,contents do not tally. The following infirmities were found:(1) according to the original cover note the proposal form was received at 9 a.m.on 5-5-1984, whereas according to the carbon copy it was received at 9.30 a.m.(2) secondly, according to the original the period for which the insurance coverwas sought for and given was from 5-5-1984 to 4-5-1985, whereas according to thecarbon copy the period for which insurance cover was sought for and given was from7-4-1984 to 6-4-1985.