Insurance claim is not maintainable if the accident occurred prior to the commencement of the policy.

The appellant (owner of a Sonalika Tractor) challenged a common award dated 04.04.2024 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balrampur

The accident occurred on 09.04.2022 when the appellant's tractor dashed into a motorcycle, killing both the rider (Riyajuddin Ansari) and the pillion rider (Gyasuddin Ansari)

The Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 7,67,760/- respectively to the claimants but exonerated the Insurance Company (Respondent No. 3/5) on the grounds that the insurance policy was issued on 10.04.2022, a day after the accident

The owner appealed for reduction of compensation, alleging contributory negligence and seeking to shift liability to the insurer

1. Whether the Insurance Company was rightly exonerated from liability on the basis of the policy's effective date

2. Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the motorcycle rider

3. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive

The Court applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding claim petitions for fatal accidents

It relied on the principle of contractual liability in insurance law, where an insurer is only liable if a valid policy is in force at the time of the accident

furthermore, it applied Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act to admit electronic records/registers verifying the date of premium payment and policy issuance

the principle that the burden of proving contributory negligence lies on the party asserting it, requiring affirmative evidence of the deceased's negligence

The Court found no illegality in exonerating the Insurance Company as the testimony of DW-1, supported by the premium receipt (Ex. D-2) and policy (Ex. D-1), proved that the insurance was effective only from 10.04.2022, whereas the accident occurred on 09.04.2022

Regarding contributory negligence, the Court observed that the appellant failed to produce evidence or examine the tractor driver to prove negligence by the deceased; conversely, the eyewitness (AW-2) established the tractor driver’s rash and negligent conduct

On the quantum, the Court determined that Rs. 5,00,000/- for a 13-year-old and Rs. 7,67,760/- for a 58-year-old were reasonable and not "excessive" under standard compensation benchmarks

the plea of contributory negligence failed for lack of evidence

the compensation amounts were just and proper

The High Court dismissed both appeals, affirming the Tribunal's decision. All interim orders were vacated