ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and award dated 16th November, 1991 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), in M.A.C. Petition No. 443 of 1987, whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the petition and directed the appellant-original opponent No. 3 and original opponent Nos. 1 and 2 to jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs. 84,600/- to the original claimant with running interest of 15% per annum from the date of the application till its realisation. However, if the original opponents pay the said amount or deposit the said amount with the Tribunal within three months from the date of the award, they shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application.

(2.) It is the case of the appellant-Insurance Company that on 17th August, 1986 Ranchhodji Dhanji had gone to village Goraj, Taluka Sanand from his village Borij to see his sick relative alongwith his wife and children. On 18th August, 1986 they were returning from village Goraj on foot for going to Sanand bus stand. At about 13.30 hours, when they came near Bharat Petrol Pump, near Sanand bus stand, one scooter bearing No. GUG-4969 dashed with his son Ramesh. As a result, Ramesh fell down and received injuries on his head, right eye and on other parts of body. The scooter was being driven negligently and carelessly by the original opponent No. 1. As a result of the said accident, Ramesh has lost his vision of right eye and suffered permanent disability. Hence, Ranchhodji Dhanji Thakor, as a guardian and next friend of minor Ramesh, filed Claim Case before the Tribunal, which ultimately came to be partly allowed as stated aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) Mr.Sunil B. Parikh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Rajni Mehta, learned Counsel for the appellant, has vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has misread and misconstrued the oral and documentary evidence available on record. He has further submitted that the accident had occurred on 18th August, 1986 at about 13.30 hours as is evident from the F.I.R., whereas the Proposal Form at Ext. 76 for taking insurance had been received by the appellant-Insurance Company at 15.00 hours on 18th August, 1986 as is evident from the Cover Note issued by the appellant-Company. Thus, there is material non-disclosure on the part of the original opponent Nos. 1 and 2. The original opponent Nos. 1 and 2 had taken the policy suppressing the fact of accident. Mr. Parikh therefore contended that the appellant-Company cannot be held liable to pay the amount. He has further contended that the Tribunal has made grave error in observing that the policy would become effective from midnight on the day of the accident because if such is the case, then no policy would be required to be taken and always after the occurrence of the accident, policy can be taken and the policy would be effective from midnight of the date of issuance of such policy.