Insurance liability commences upon premium receipt despite a later commencement time specified in the policy.

The claimant (Respondent No. 1) sustained injuries in a motor accident on August 5, 2010, at approximately 06:00 p.m., involving a vehicle insured by the Appellant

The insurance premium for the offending vehicle was paid in cash at 02:51 p.m. on the same day (August 5, 2010), as confirmed by the insurance company’s witness

However, the insurance policy document specified that the risk commencement period began on August 6, 2010, at 00:00 hours

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation of Rs. 46,211 with 7.5% interest, holding the insurer liable because the premium was paid prior to the accident

The Appellant challenged this award, contending the policy was not in force at the time of the accident.

The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Maya Devi & Ors. (2024), which held that if an insurer fails to prove that premium was not received prior to an accident, the vehicle is deemed insured

It further considered National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sobina Iakai (2007), which generally states policy effectiveness starts from the time incorporated in the contract

New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal (1990), regarding the "midnight rule" in the absence of a specific time

The court also applied contract law principles of "offer and acceptance" as discussed in LIC v. Raja Vasireddy Komalavalli Kamba (1984) and Bhumikaben N. Modi v. LIC (2024), establishing that acceptance of a premium assumes risk from the date of such acceptance

The court reasoned that the payment of a premium constitutes an offer by the insured, and its receipt/acceptance by the insurer binds the company to the risk unless the offer is expressly rejected

Although the policy document was issued with a future commencement time, the court noted that the premium was undisputedly received at 02:51 p.m., while the accident occurred over three hours later at 06:00 p.m.

Following the precedent in Nanhe Lal v. Satender Giri (2024), the court observed that an insured should not be penalized for an insurer's internal administrative procedures or delays in documenting the policy

It rejected the argument of fraud, noting that since the premium preceded the accident, the insured could not have "staged" the event to claim insurance

Consequently, the court held that the contract of insurance fructified upon the receipt of the premium.

It held that the insurance company is liable for risks from the moment the premium is deposited and accepted, regardless of a later commencement time mentioned in the policy document, provided there is no fraud

The Appellant was directed to deposit the total compensation with up-to-date interest within four weeks for release to the claimant

The stay on the execution of the award was vacated, and the statutory deposit was ordered to be refunded to the Appellant