ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAJESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the award dated 13. 5. 2002 passed by the additional Member, M. A. C. T. , Sonkutch in claim Case No. 23 of 2000 whereby the claim case filed by one Rajesh, respondent no. 1 herein was allowed and a sum of rs. 2,55,880 was awarded for which the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 along with the appellant were held liable for payment of compensation jointly and severally, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that one rajesh who is respondent No. 1 herein filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal alleging that on 2. 11. 1999 at about 1. 30 p. m. respondent No. 1 met with an accident with a Maruti car bearing engine No. 1945397, chassis No. 361194 which was driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 2, owned by respondent No. 3 and insured with appellant insurance company. It was alleged that because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, respondent No. 1 sustained injuries, hence the claim case be allowed and compensation be awarded from respondent Nos. 2 and 3 along with appellant. The claim case was contested by the appellant and also by the respondent No. 3. The stand of respondent no. 3 was that respondent No. 2 was not rash and negligent in driving and was not cause of accident. It was alleged that even if it is presumed that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, then too, since the offending vehicle was insured with appellant, therefore, the amount of compensation be recovered from the appellant. The stand of the appellant was that the accident took place at about 1. 30 p. m. while offending vehicle was got insured at 4. 50 p. m. , i. e. , after the accident. It was alleged that since the policy was obtained after the accident, therefore, appellant insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, the Tribunal allowed the claim case and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,55,880 holding that offending vehicle was insured at the time of accident with the appellant and appellant is liable for the payment of compensation along with respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to respondent No. 1.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submits that learned tribunal committed error in holding the appellant liable for payment of compensation. It is submitted that policy is on record which is marked as Exh. D3 which bears the timings, according to which policy was issued at 16. 50 hours (4. 50 p. m.) while accident took place at 1. 30 p. m. It is submitted that appellant has examined P. P. Pingle, Branch Manager of appellant who has proved that the policy was issued at 4. 50 p. m. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of this court in the matter of Haji Mohd. v. Ravindra, 2009 ACJ 31 (MP), wherein after taking into consideration all the decisions of Apex Court and also this court, it was held that the policy comes in play with effect from the timings mentioned in policy. Further reliance is placed on a decision of Division Bench of this court in the matter of National Insurance co. Ltd. v. Tarachand, M. A. No. 1149 of 2004; decided on 8. 1. 2008, wherein the accident took place at 1. 30 p. m. while the cover note was issued at 6. 45 p. m. on the same date. In this case, it was held that since the insurance policy was obtained after the accident, therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation.