ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. BILKISHBEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per office note this appeal is barred by 106 days. An application, M(C)P No. 2563 of 2001 has been filed, seeking condonation of delay. This application is duly supported by an affidavit. It has been mentioned in the application that after the permission was granted by Regional Office, Indore for filing an appeal, the file was lost in transit from Indore to Ratlam, which was required to prefer an appeal as the jurisdiction was that of Divisional Office, Ratlam. From the said application we find that no date has been given as to when it was sent from the Regional Office, Indore to Divisional Office, Ratlam for filing the appeal. The mode of transmission has also not been described. The other necessary details, which should have been given in the said application explaining the delay, are missing. Thus we find that appellant insurance company has failed to make out the ground for condonation of delay. This M(C)P is accordingly hereby rejected. Consequently, the appeal also fails.

(2.) However, we have also examined the merits of the matter. The only ground taken by insurance company in the appeal was that the cheque paid, by owner of the vehicle towards premium, had bounced subsequently with the result the insurance cover was cancelled. However, it is not in dispute that on the date of the accident the vehicle was insured, the cancellation of insurance cover took subsequently after the accident. Such questions have already been answered by the Supreme Court in the matters in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur, 1998 ACJ 123 (SC); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rula, 2000 ACJ 630 (SC) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Seema Malhotra, 2001 ACJ 638 (SC). In view of the ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court, the relevant date is the date of accident. If the policy in question was in force on the said date, but has been cancelled on a subsequent date of the accident then the liability has to be fastened on the insurance company as well as for third party risk. Precisely, this is what has happened in this case. Thus, on merit also we find that there is no substance in this appeal. However, the right of the appellant insurance company to recover the amount of compensation payable to the claimant is reserved by preferring an appropriate remedy, as has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in the matter of Seema Malhotra (supra).