ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SRINIVASA SETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE insurer being aggrieved by the Judgment and award dated 21.1.1991 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in M.V.C. No. 176/88, awarding a sum of Rs. 18,500/ - by way of compensation along with costs and interest at 6 per cent per annum, has approached this Court in this Appeal challenging the correctness and legality of the finding recorded by the Tribunal as to the liability of the insurer to answer the claim, on more than one grounds.

(2.) WE have heard the learned Counsel on both sides. Mr. H.G. Ramesh, learned Counsel of the appellant -insurer, while taking us to the facts of the case that could be gathered from the judgment and award, pointed out that by virtue of Ex. R -1, produced and marked on behalf of the insurer in the Tribunal, it was undisputed that the Insurance Policy came to be issued in favour of the insured on the 17th November, 1987 at 4 p.m. It was valid till 16.11.1988. The contention urged in support of the appeal is that when a specific time of commencement of risk is noted in the policy, apart from taking into consideration the date on which the policy came to be issued, for the purposes of tracing the liability of the insurer, the Court must take into consideration the time at which the Insurance Policy came to be issued.

(3.) BEFORE referring to the Ruling in Kalavathi's case, it is better to note the Decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal and Ors. 1990 (2) ACJ 545, relied upon by the Tribunal. In that case the Supreme Court held that 'Date' means day, so that where a cover note providing for temporary insurance of a motor car expires 15 days after the date of commencement, it runs for the full 15 days after the day on which it was to commence. This is based upon the interpretation of Stroud's Judicial Dictionary. The Supreme Court also held that the date expressed on the face of the Insurance Policy and not the time when it is actually issued, is to be considered. It is apparent by looking at the Decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Dayal's case that though the date was mentioned in the policy, no time of insurance of the policy was mentioned. Therefore, the Supreme Court had no occasion to consider a case where the policy disclosed the time and date of commencement of risk.