IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 227 of 2007()
1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SHAKEER, S/O MOIDEEN,
... Respondent
2. A.R.RAGHAVAN, S/O RAVUNNY,
3. ANTO, S/O.VARGHESE,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :15/07/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J
=====================
MACA Nos.227/2007 & 1/2008
=====================
Dated this the 15th day of July 2008
JUDGMENT
MACA No.227 of 2007 is preferred against the award of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV)No.2962 of 2000 and
MACA No.1 of 2008 is preferred against the award of the same Tribunal in
O.P.(MV)No.96 of 2002. In both the cases the question that arises for
determination is regarding the date of commencement of the policy. The
date of commencement of the policy, according to the learned counsel for
the insurance company is that date which is given in the policy since it is a
contract between the two parties whereby they had agreed to come into a
contract from a particular date to another particular date. On the other hand,
it is contended by the other side that when the premium is tendered, there is
a concluded contract and therefore it will start from that time onwards. In
various decisions of the Apex Court, it has been held that suppose a policy
is taken after the accident and there is stipulated time in the policy with
reference to the date when it is taken then it will operate only from that
time and the theory of relating back to the midnight of the previous day may
MACAs227/07 & 1/08 -:2:-
not arise.
2. So far as these cases are concerned, admittedly, the policies are
issued only on the next day but the contention is that premium has been paid
earlier on the previous day, viz., on the date of the accident. So far as that
contention is concerned, it requires meritorious consideration for the
following reasons. It has been held in the decision reported in Oriental
Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Vedathal and another(2001ACJ 2022) and in
T.Dinakar v. P.J.Jagadish and others(2000 ACJ 228) that there is
importance for payment of the premium and it has been held after
interpreting Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act that it will take effect from
the date of payment of the premium. It is also equally settled that such a
premium should have been paid prior to the accident. So another question
that may have to decide is when did premium was paid in both the cases and
when did the accident take place. Suppose the premium is paid prior to the
taking place of the accident what will be the impact of the decision referred
to in the same paragraph may have to be considered. So the matter requires
detailed consideration on both these aspects.
Therefore the awards under challenge are set aside to the limited
extent of finding out the question whether there is an effective policy on the
date of the accident and whether the insurance company is liable to pay the
MACAs227/07 & 1/08 -:3:-
amount or it is for the owner in case of non-policy to pay the amount to the
claimant for this purpose. All parties are permitted to adduce evidence both
oral and documentary in support of their respective contentions and the
matter be disposed of in accordance with law taking into consideration all
the contentions raised by the parties and the Tribunal may dispose of the
matter within 4 months from the date of first appearance of the parties.
Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 25.8.2008.
MACAs are disposed of as above.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
Cdp/-