Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RAM DAYAL AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT20/04/1990
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
RAMASWAMY, K.
CITATION:
1990 SCR (2) 570 1990 SCC (2) 680
JT 1990 (2) 164 1990 SCALE (1)783
ACT:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.’ Insurance Policy--When
becomes effective.
HEADNOTE:
In a claim for compensation, the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal held that the insurer was not liable to meet the
award of compensation against the owner of the vehicle, as
the policy had been taken after the accident. On appeal, the
High Court held that the insurance policy obtained on the
date of accident became operative from the commencement of
the date of insurance, i.e. from the previous mid-night, and
since the accident took place on the date of the policy, the
insurer became liable.
Dismissing the appeals by the insurer, this Court.
HELD: When a policy is taken on a particular date, its
effectiveness is from the commencement of the date.
In the instant case, the insurance was taken from 28th
September, 1984, which is the date of the accident. The High
Court was, therefore, right in holding that the insurer was
liable in terms of the Act to meet the liability of the
owner under the award. [571F-G]
Jaddoo Singh & Anr. v. Smt. Malti Devi & Anr., AIR 1983
All. 87, approved.
In re. F.B. Warren, [1938] Ch. 725, referred to.
Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 188-89
of 1987.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11. 1986 of the
Punjab & Haryana High Court in First Appeal Order Nos. 620 &
619 of 1986.
571
K.K. Jain and Pramod Dayal for the Appellant.
Meera Chhabra and Ms. Pani Chhabra for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANGANATH MISRA, J. These are appeals by special leave
challenging the reversing common decision of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court holding the insurer liable for compensa-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
tion under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939.
The insurer repudiated its liability by maintaining that
the policy had been taken after the accident and, therefore,
it had no liability to meet the award of compensation
against the owner. The Tribunal accepted this stand and
rejected the claim against the insurer. In appeal, the High
Court took the view relying upon certain decisions that the
insurance policy obtained on the date of the accident became
operative from the commencement of the date of
insurance--i.e. from the previous mid-night and since the
accident took place on the date of the policy the insurer
became liable.
Apart from the judgment under appeal, we find that this
view is supported by two judgments of the Madras High Court
and an earlier decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court
Two Division Benches of the Madras High Court have taken the
view after discussing the law at length that the policy
taken during any part of the day becomes operative from the
commencement of that day. Besides these judgments a Division
Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Jaddoo Singh &
Anr. v. Smt. Malti Devi & Anr., AIR 1983 All. 87 supports
this view on principle.
There is evidence in this case that the vehicle was
insured earlier upto 31.8. 1984 and the same was available
to be renewed but instead of obtaining renewal, a fresh
insurance was taken from 28th of September, 1984, which is
the date of the accident. We are inclined to agree with the
view indicated in these decisions that when a policy is
taken on a particular date its effectiveness is from the
commencement of the date and, therefore, the High Court, in
our opinion, was right in holding that the insurer was
liable in terms of the Act to meet the inability of the
owner under the award.
As pointed out in Stroud’s judicial Dictionary ’Date’
means day, so that where a cover not providing for temporary
insurance of a motor
572
car expires 15 days after date of commencement, it runs for
the full 15 days after the day on which it was to commence."
Similarly it has been stated in Stroud that "a bill of
exchange, or note, is of the date expressed on its face, not
the time when it is actually issued."
’To the same effect is the decision in Re F & B Warren,
[1938] Ch. 725 where it has been held that a judicial act
will be referred to the first moment of the day on which it
is done. A payment made by a bankrupt in the morning of a
day is, therefore, not made, within section 45 of the Bank-
ruptcy Act, 1914 before the date of a receiving order made
later in the same day.
The ratio of these also supports the view we have taken.
The appeals fails and are dismissed. There would, howev-
er, be no order for costs.
N.P.V. Appeals dis-
missed.
573