C. RAMAMOORTHY AND OTHERS Vs. GANDHIMATHI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The owner of the vehicle has preferred the above appeals and the revisions against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai dated 21-3-1996 in MCOP Nos. 289/93, 204/93, 205/93, 227/93, 219/93, 291/93 and 292 of 1993. The claimants before the Tribunal have filed those claim petitions claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by them in an accident occurred on 30-1-93 at 12.15 a. m. in Thiruvannamalai Thirukoilur Road. The claimants had impleaded the owners of the vehicle, the tractor and Trailor as well as the Insurance Company as the respondents in the main O. Ps. The case of the claimant is that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor by the driver and they are entitled for the compensation. The Insurance Company disputed their liability on the ground that on the date of the accident, there is no valid Insurance Policy. The Policy was renewed only on 1-2-1993. The earlier Policy expired on 28-1-1993 and since there is no policy at all, they are not liable to pay any (sic) the owners are liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal found that on the date of the accident, there is no insurance policy at all and as such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and only the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation. As against this, the owner of the vehicle has filed these appeals and the revisions. Since in all the matters the issue is common and the question raised is also common, I have decided to dispose of the matter by common judgment. The Tribunal also passed a common award.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants and the petitioners in the revisions vehemently contended that as per the terms of the earlier policy, the Insurance Company had agreed to receive the premium even on a later date and renew the policy with retrospective effect and as such it cannot be said that there is no valid policy at all. When once the Insurance Policy is renewed, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation irrespective of the renewal which relates to a later date, as there is an agreement between the parties. When the owner of the vehicle has been regularly paying the premium for the policy and keeping the same renewed year after year, the mere lapse to renew the policy for a few days cannot be construed as there was no policy at all. As soon as the policy is renewed the Insurance Company shall be made liable for the compensation. Apart from this, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the accident occurred only due to the mechanical defect and hence the owner of the vehicle cannot be made liable to pay the compensation.

(3.) I have carefully considered the contention of the counsel. So far as the liability of the Insurance company is concerned, admittedly there is no valid policy as on the date of the accident that is 30-1-1993. The Policy has been renewed from 1-2-1993 to 31-1-1994. If ; there is an agreement or there is any terms in the earlier policy by which the owner of the vehicle is entitled for renewal from the date of expiry of the earlier policy, it is for the owner of 1 the vehicle to enforce the same against the Insurance Company. There is nothing on record to show that such condition had been enforced by the owner of the vehicle in these cases. When admittedly the policy has been renewed from 1-2-1993 and the owner of the vehicle has also accepted the same now it is not open to him to contend that as per the terms of the previous policy, the Insurance Company has agreed to renew the policy from the date of the expiry of the earlier policy. The fact remains that on the date of the accident there is no valid Insurance Policy and as such there is no agreement between the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company. Hence the Insurance Company cannot be made liable and the finding of the Tribunal is correct.