http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.  LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT.  SITA BAI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/09/1999

BENCH: CJL, M.  Srinivasan, R.C.  Lohoti.

JUDGMENT:

DER       Leave granted.

     Respondents  I to 4 filed a claim petition before  the Motor  Accident Claims Tribunal, Khandwa against respondents 5,6 and the appellant herein - New India Assurance Co.  Ltd. The claim petition arose out of an accident which took place at 10.00 AM on 16.4.1987.  Bus No.CPO-9104, owned by

     respondent  No.5  and  driven by respondent  No.6  was involved  in  that  accident in which one  Smt.   Salta  Bai suffered fatal injuries.  The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide  order dated 22.9.1990 opined that the bus in  question was  insured  with the appellant-insurance Company  for  the period  16.4.1987  to 15.4.1988 (both days  inclusive)  and. thus.   the owner (respondent No.5) as well as the Insurance Company  (appellant herein) were liable under the provisions of  Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter  the Act).  An amount of Rs.  15.000- was accordingly directed to be  paid  as ad-interim compensation to respondents I  to  4 under  Section  92-  A of the Act.  The order of  the  Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was put in issue and a first appeal was  filed in the High Court of M.P.  at Jabalpur.  On  11th March.   1991  .a  learned Single Judge of  the  High  Court relying  upon  the law laid down by this Court in New  India Assurance  Co.  Ltd.  Vs.  Ram Dayal and Ors., [1990 (2) SCC 680],  held that the appeal had no merits and dismissed  the same  summarily.  Aggrieved, the appellant-insurance Company is before us by special leave.

     A  brief notice of some of the admitted facts would be advantageous at this stage.

     The  proposal for insuring the vehicle in question was made by the owner of the vehicle on 16.4.1987 at 2100 hours. The  cover  note was issued by the appellant in  respect  of that vehicle, being No.P.’703802 on 16.4.1987 at 2100 hours. The  Insurance Policy (Exh.P5) was later on issued in  which also  the  date of commencement of the insurance policy  was recorded  as  16.4.1987  (2100  hours).   The  accident,  in question,  in which Smt.  Salta Bai received fatal  injuries had admittedly occurred at 10.00 A.M.  on 16.4.1987..  i.e.. much before the commencement of the insurance policy.

     The  High Court opined that the insurance policy dated 16.4.1987  covered  the period of the accident also  because the  policy would be deemed to have commenced at midnight of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

15.4.1987 and 16.4.1987.  The High Court in taking this view relied upon the judgment in Ram Dayal’s case (supra).

     The  correctness and applicability of the judgment  in Ram  Dayal’s  case (supra} came up for consideration  before this  Court  subsequently  in  a number  of  cases.   ln.New India.Assurance  Col  Ltd.   Vs, Bhagwati Devi and  Ors.   - Civil.appeal  No.   1550 of 1994, decided on  10.2.1998.   a three-  Judge Bench of this Court relied upon the view taken in National Insurance Co.  Ltd.  Vs.  Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi (Smt) and Ors., [1997 (1) SCC

     66],  wherein  it  had been held that if  there  is  a special  contract, mentioning in the policy the time when it was  bought,  the insurance policy would be  operative  from that time and not from the previous midnight as was the case in  Ram Dayal’s case, where no time from which the insurance policy  was to become effective had been mentioned.  It  was held  that  should there be no contract to the contrary,  an insurance  policy  becomes  operative   from  the   previous midnight,  when  bought during the day following;  but.   in cases  where there is a mention of the specific time for the purchase  of the policy.  then a special contract comes into being  and  tile  policy  becomes effective  from  the  time mentioned in the cover note/the policy itself.  The judgment in Jikubhai’s case (supra) has been subsequently followed in Oriental.   Insurance  Co.  Ltd, Vs.  Sunita Rathi  &  Ors.. [1998  (1)  SCC 365].  by a three-Judge Bench of this  Court also.

     In  the  fact  situation  of   this  case  since   the commencement  of  the policy at 2100 hours on 16.4.1987  was after  the  accident  which had occurred at  1000  hours  on 16.4.1987, the Tribunal as well as the High Court were wrong in  burdening  the  appellant-insurance  Company,  with  any liability-  under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act  by applying the law- laid down in Ram Dayal’s ca.se.  which, on facts,  had  no  application  to this case.   This  case  is squarely covered by the judgment in Jikhubhai’s case and the

     other  judgments  following it as noticed above.   The impugned   order  against  the   appellant  cannot  thus  be sustained.   The  same  is  hereby set  aside.   The  appeal consequently   succeeds  and  is   allowed  insofar  as  the appellant is concerned.  No costs.