NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant impugns the award passed by Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhar in M.A.C. No. 102 of 1994 wherein the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 50,000 to the claimants recoverable from the appellant and respondent No. 3 by holding that on the date and time of the accident involved vehicle was insured with the appellant.

(2.) Mr. Dandwate, counsel for the appellant submitted that though the record shows that the accident took place at about 2.00 p.m., the insurance cover note was executed at 3.15 p.m. The Tribunal rejected the evidence adduced by the appellant and awarded compensation to the claimants recoverable from the appellant also. Mr. Dandwate placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi, 1997 ACJ 351 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court held that: "When the contract of insurance was renewed at 4.00 p.m. on 25.10.1983, it would be operative up to 24.10.1984." It further held that "The Tribunal in that matter had recorded, as a fact, that the accident had occurred on 25.10.1983 at 11.14 a.m., that is, before the renewal of the contract, in that case, the insurance cover would not cover the accident that had occurred earlier to the time of insurance renewal." In the said matter a reference has been also made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal, 1990 ACJ 545 (SC) and it has been clarified that in the absence of any specific time mentioned in that behalf, the contract would be operative from the midnight of the day by operation of provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897. He submitted that in the present case when the insurance policy was executed at 3.15 p.m. on the date of accident, it would not cover the accident which took place at 2.00 p.m. Mr. Dandwate further submitted that it was wrong on the part of the member of the Tribunal to discard the evidence led by insurance company holding that the insurance cover note was executed at the residence of the Development Officer.

(3.) I find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant by Mr. Dandwate, because the evidence on record shows that the accident had occurred prior to the execution of the cover note. The acceptance of liability of indemnifying of the owner of the vehicle starts operating from the moment when the document accepting such liability is executed. Executing the document in that context is vouching the said transaction and acceptance of the liability. The evidence has to be assessed as a whole. When the evidence is creating the impact of acceptability of a fact, it cannot be discarded on flimsy grounds. The Tribunal has committed the error in doing so.