NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SUDHAKARAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M.A.C.A. No.983/2009, placed before us for consideration based on a reference order dated 3.9.2010, of a learned Single Judge and the other appeals arising from the common judgment and awards of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, in a pair of claim petitions germinated from the same motor vehicle accident, also carry the same question for resolution. "Can the insurer of a motor vehicle, involved in an accident during the currency of its policy of insurance, decline to assume the risk in respect of the insurance business, arising out of that accident occurred on the date of receipt of the premium merely because going by the policy of insurance, its coverage commenced not on the date of receipt of premium, but only from 00.hrs of the next day", is the larger question to be resolved. A succinct narration of the facts of the cases, is required to answer the aforesaid question and allied issues.

(2.) We will firstly, deal with facts of the two claim petitions germinated from the same accident and culminated in the common judgment and awards of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, as mentioned above, viz., O.P.(MV) Nos.2198/2004 and 2410/2004. The claimants therein are husband and wife. They were knocked down by the maruthi car bearing registration No.KL-7H-3985 when they were walking alongside Ernakulam-Muvattupuzha road on 13.4.2004 at about 1.30 p.m. Respondents 1 to 3 therein are respectively its driver, owner and insurer, at the time of the accident. On sustaining, bodily injuries, they were taken to Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church Medical College Hospital, Kolencherry and after providing first aid, they were referred to Lissie Hospital, Ernakulam for better treatment. The husband filed OP.(MV) No.2198/2004 claiming a total compensation of Rs.3,06,000.00 and the wife filed O.R(MV) No.2410/2004 claiming a compensation of Rs.2,33,000.00, under S. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The accident and the cause of accident as the negligence from the part of the 1st respondent, the driver of the said offending vehicle are not at all in dispute. At the same time, the Insurance Company, the 3rd respondent therein disowned the liability to indemnify the 2nd respondent, the insured owner of the offending vehicle, contending that as on the date of accident, there was no policy coverage as the policy in respect of the vehicle in question had commenced its coverage only from 00.hrs on 14.4.2004 and therefore, it had validity only from 14.4.2004 to 13.4.2005. Such a contention is raised even while admitting the factum of receipt of premium on the previous day viz., on 13.04.2004. The owner of the vehicle, the 2nd respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The first and third respondents contested the matter. The claim petitions were jointly heard and on the side of the claimants Exts.AI to A32 were got marked and on the side of the respondents, the policy of the offending vehicle was got marked as Ext.B1. On the side of the claimants, they were examined as PWs 1 and 2 and no oral evidence was tendered by the respondents.

(3.) After evaluating the evidence on record and appreciating the rival contentions, the Tribunal had passed a common award granting an amount of Rs.1,54,000.00 in O.R(MV)No.2198/2004 and an amount of Rs. 98,200.00 in OP.(MV) No.2410/2004, as compensation, with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the expiry of one month from the date of the judgment and in case of failure to satisfy the awards within the said stipulated time limit, the amount awarded in each of the cases, was ordered to carry interest @ 9% per annum till realisation. The insurer was found liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent insured owner of the offending vehicle. In the said circumstances, the insurer of the vehicle involved in the said accident filed M.A.C.A.No.1866/2009 challenging the judgment and award in O.P.(MV) No.2198/2004. The claimant in OP.(MV) No.2198/2004 filed M.A.C.A.No.981/2015 seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation and besides the same, he filed a cross objection, viz., C.O.No.54/2009 in M.A.C.A.No.1866/2009. Evidently, it is apprehending that the same would not be maintained as the appellant had not disputed the quantum of compensation that he filed M.A.C.A.No.981/2015. The insurer has also filed an appeal against the award in O.P.(MV)No.2410/2004, viz., M.A.C.A. No. 1873/2009.