UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SATRUGHAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises out of decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, in S.C. Case No. 474/A/95 dated 24th July, 1996 whereby the State Commission has upheld the decision of the District Forum awarding a sum of Rs. 30,000/- against United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the petitioner herein, and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- against the Bank of India-respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in this petition. The Bank has not challenged the findings of the State Commission. The revision petition was admitted and notice was duly issued to all the respondents. All tine three parties i.e. the petitioner, respondent No. 1 and respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were heard. Facts of the case briefly stated, are that one Satrughan Sharma respondent purchased a vehicle being Ambassador Car being Registration No. WS-04/4426on 15th May, 1991. The purchase of the said car was financed by Bank of India, Ballygunge Military Camp Branch against the security of, inter alia, hypothecation of the said car. The Bank was to get the said car insured under comprehensive insurance cover with the petitioner i.e. the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. No. V, 25, Brabourne Road, Calcutta and the insurance policy was valid until 16th May, 1992.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the said order an appeal was preferred by Insurance Company which was rejected by the State Commission on the plea that the renewal of the insurance policy which was effective from 19th of May, 1992 should relate back to the midnight hour when the date 19th May commenced and any accident which had taken place after the midnight hour would he covered by tine said policy and the Insurance Company is liable. Whiled is posing of that appeal we are afraid that tine State Commission had overlooked the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Oriental Insurance Company v. Sunita Rathi and Ors., 1997 9 JT 767. In that case the policy was taken at 2.55 p.m. on 10th December, 1991 when the accident had occurred at 2.20 p.m. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while rendering its decision in the above case had considered its decision in Kamdayal's case i.e. The New India Assurance Co. ltd. v. Ramdayal and Others, (1990) 2 SCC 680, distinguished it on the ground that the decision in Kamdayal's case only date of commencement of the policy was mentioned and no time of commencement on mat date was given. As no time was mentioned on the insurance policy in Kamdayal's case it was held that it would be the midnight hour from which the date mentioned on the insurance cover commences wherefrom the risk would get covered. We are afraid that it is not the case here and in fact a specific time is mentioned on the insurance cover. Therefore, the law laid down in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi and Ors., and not Ramdayal "s case would apply. In the present case the insured has renewed the policy with effect from 10.00 a.m. i.e. the commencement of the office hours on 19th May, 1992 and this time has duly been mentioned in the policy. As such any accident that may have taken place prior to this hour would not be covered by the said insurance policy.