NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. HONAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an insurer's appeal on the question of liability. The accident took place at 2. 30 a. m. on the night between 5. 2. 1984 and 6. 2. 1984. The insurance policy was in effect till 21. 9. 1983 and had not been renewed subsequently. After the accident, during the office hours on 6. 2. 1984 the owner went to the insurance company, paid the premium and obtained a fresh insurance policy without disclosing the happening of the accident. The insurance company contended before the tribunal that the risk commenced only when the premium was paid during office hours and, therefore, it is not liable to indemnify the owner with regard to the accident which took place at 2. 30 a. m. the tribunal refused to accept that contention and held that under the law the risk is deemed to have commenced from the midnight of 6. 2. 1984 and, therefore, held that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount. Being aggrieved this appeal is preferred.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The tribunal, in support of its view, has relied upon two decisions. In Jaikrishandas V. Chinuthai Animal, 1984 ACJ 530 (Madras), a division bench of the Madras High Court held that the policy is deemed to cover from the midnight of the date on which it is issued. In Maya Devi V. Hoob Raj, 1988 ACJ 478 (pandh), the Punjab and Haryana High Courtheld that if the insurance policy is obtained on the same day after the accident, it operates from the previous midnight and, therefore, the insurance company would be liable. The tribunal has rightly followed the reasonings in these two decisions. The learned counsel for the appellant was unable to bring to my notice any decision which has taken a contrary view. In view of the prevailing legal position, it cannot be said that the tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability on the insurance company. There is no merit in this appeal and h is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are judgments to show that if the insurance company had put the time at the time of renewal, then the risk would cover only from the time of renewal and not earlier. Accepting this argument, it is seen from the facts on hand no such time has been put on the insurance policy. Therefore this argument does not come to the aid of the appellant in this case.