IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 2827 of 2008() ------------------------------------ OPMV.1286/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................................. APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------- GEORGE, S/O. JOHN, PARAPPAN HOUSE, OLLUR, ANCHERY DESOM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJAN, S/O. KURIAKOSE, PANNAPPAT HOUSE, ALUVA EAST, ALUVA. 2. A.K. RAJAN, S/O. AMMINI AMMA, AYYATH HOUSE, OLLURKARA, THRISSUR. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, P.B. NO,. 24, MULLAPPILLY BUILDINGS, A.M ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR. ADV. SRI. JOE KALLIATH FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. M.N. KRISHNAN,J ----------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.2827 OF 2008 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV) No.1286/2001. The claimant, a passenger in a bus sustained injuries in a road accident when it collide with a lorry bearing registration No. KL 8 H 6957. The accident took place on 28.2.2001 and the Tribunal after consideration of the materials, awarded a compensation of Rs.78,950/- with 7% interest. The Tribunal also found that there was no valid policy for the vehicle on the date of accident and therefore, exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability and made second respondent to deposit the amount, though respondents 1 and 2 were jointly and severally were made liable to pay compensation. It is against that decision claimant has come up in appeal. There is also challenge regarding the quantum. But after going through the award , I find that Tribunal has considered it in the right manner and has awarded a really just and reasonable compensation in this case. Therefore, the MACA. No.2827/08 2 point that has to be considered here is regarding the liability of the Insurance Company. The vehicle involved in the accident, according to the Insurance company had a valid policy between the period 29.2.2000 and 27.2.2001. It is contended that since the accident had taken place on 28.2.2001 the Insurance Company has no liability. Unfortunately, to start with the claimant impleaded the Insurance Company which had subsequently issued a policy from 1.3.2001 to 28.2.2002, which was Oriental Insurance Company. So the gap is only a day and it is the crucial day so far as the case is concerned. Now as usual in all motor accident claims cases, owner is keeping pretty tight and in spite of sending notice to him and issuing summons to him to produce policy, he does not come forward with the policy. So court is now to decide the matter with the materials available. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend before me first that from the policy, it can bee seen that it is issued up to 28.2.2001. It can be seen that the word 27 is corrected in the photocopy as 28 and produced before the court. Such a copy cannot be accepted without seeing the original records. The Insurance Company is retaining a very clear copy and it shows that issuance of the policy is for the period 29.2.2000 to MACA. No.2827/08 3 27.2.2001. There is no correction there and therefore, the true copy of the policy would reveal that it is issued for the period from 29.2.2000 to 27.2.2001. Now the learned counsel for the appellant wanted to highlight on the point that when a policy is issued for a period of of one year and it commences on 29.2.2000, naturally and necessarily it comes to an end only on 28.2.2001. But learned counsel for Insurance Company would contend that the policy is issued as a uniform practice for a period of 365 days. If 365 days is the criteria and the date of issuance of the policy is 29.2.2001 then the 365th day will end on 27.2.2001 and not on 28.2.2001. When this is the situation, learned counsel had argued before me drawing my attention to various dictionaries. When a leap year is considered and the contract is for one year, it has been held by English Court that the end is only on the 366th day. But these are in cases where there is no specific clause about commencement and termination of the policy. From the materials available in the form of a copy, it is very clearly stated that policy commenced on 29.2.2000 and ends on 29.2.2001. It is in this context, I like to state normally policies are renewed with the same Insurance Company. But in this case, the owner deviates from the practice and took policy from another MACA. No.2827/08 4 company namely, Oriental Insurance Company on 1.3.2001. I am just mentioning it to show that all is not well in the case of owner in this case. Learned counsel for appellant also drew my attention to endorsements made on the charge sheet. If really police authorities has seen the policy or original of the policy they would have kept a copy in their case diary and there was a methodology for the claimant to have summoned the file and prove through somebody to come to a conclusion how they got the date 28.2.2001. It is not done. It has to be remembered that regarding the question of policy, question of driving license etc. are matters in which Insurance Company had to help the court. But when the Insurance Company categorically and specifically contends and produce a copy available with it and it shows that it is only 27.2.2001, it is not proper on the part of the court to come to a different conclusion without acceptable legal materials. Then the learned counsel for the appellant submits before me that had the proposal form be produced he could have proved that difference in the dates. The copy retained by Insurance company without any correction only shows the date as 27.2.2001. It is only in this court the claimant wants to get the proposal form. Still, I directed the Insurance Company to find out the proposal MACA. No.2827/08 5 form and to produce it. They have answered that in the passage of time, it is not kept and they are not able to produce it. I think there is no ill intention to suppress a document especially being the instrumentality of the state. From this materials I hold that materials are not there to find that the policy was there up to 28.2.2001. The reliable materials would show only up to 27.2.2001. It is shown that accident had taken place on 28.2.2001. The vehicle involved in the accident did not have a policy at all. Therefore, the question of making the Insurance Company liable does not arise. Therefore, I find the trial court has proceeded strictly in accordance with materials and law and decided the case, which does not call for any interference. Therefore the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sou.