NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAM KRISHNA MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE insurer of the vehicle is the appellant in both these appeals challenging the award of the Tribunal on the ground that the policy of insurance having been obtained by practising fraud with effect from 2.5.1986 though the premium amount was actually paid on 7.5.1986, the insurer should not be held liable for the compensation amount in question in respect of the accident that occurred on 4.5.1986.

(2.) THE claimants in M.A. No. 125 of 1991 are the father and mother of the deceased aged about 25 years and the amount of compensation determined therein was Rs. 57,000/ - out of which the insurer's liability is to the extent of Rs. 50,000/ - as provided under the statute. The injured himself is the claimant in other Misc. Appeal and the insurer's liability is to the extent of Rs. 15,000/ - as provided under the statute. I am not concerned with the findings of the Tribunal that the vehicle bearing registration No. TML 9097 met with an accident on 4.5.1986 while it was being driven rashly and negligently and in course of the said accident the deceased died whose dependants are the claimants in M.A. No. 125 of 1991 and similarly the injured sustained injury who is the claimant in M.A. No. 129 of 1991.

(3.) MR . Basu appearing for the insurer in both these appeals contends that under the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938, the insurer is not liable to assume risk unless and until necessary deposit of the premium amount is made in advance in the prescribed manner as contained in Section 64 -VB of the Act and since admittedly the premium amount in the present case appears to have been deposited on 7.5.1986 there was no liability on the insurer to take risk with effect from any anterior point of time. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on a Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court in Asma Begum v. Nisar Ahmed 1990 ACS 832 (Karnataka), where the question of renewal of an insurance policy was under consideration. After noticing the provisions of Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 64 -VB of the Insurance Act, the learned Judges took the view that the policy in question would be effective only on and with effect from the date of payment of premium and not from any anterior point of time and, therefore, the policy did not cover the risk arising out of an accident which took place prior to the point of time when the premium was paid.