(p IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOFLCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(Q No. 3^ of 2011 ?^^^1 '-eesich f' APPELLANT JON-APPLICANT No.2 RBSPONDENTS Shiv Kumar Tamrakar, S/o. Ramprasad Tamrakar, R/o. Ward No.6 Gandaee Pandariya, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus Bhuneshwar Prasad Sharma,^ S/o. Jhumuk Prasad Sharma, aged 48 years, » :2) Bhanu Sharma, S/o. Bhuneshwa^r Sharma aged 33 years ^ :3J Vijay Sharma, S/o. Bhuneshwar Sharma aged about 32 years Vinay Sharma, S/o. Bhuneshwar Sharma, aged about 30 years, (A) Smt. Satroopa Bai, W/o. late Hariram Sharma, ::: ^[B) Minor, Kumari Priya, D/o. Late Hariram Sharma, aged about 10 months Ku. Nilima Sharma, D/o. Bhuneshwar Sharma, aged about 24 years, All R/o. Village Gandaee Pandariya, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) CLAIMANTS :J) Dinesh Tiwari, S/o. Rambhagwan Tiwari, R/o. Kailash Nagar, Ward No.02 Kawardha, District Kabirdham- Kawardh^a (C.G.) NON-APPLICANT No. 1 ^S) L-^-i :8) I.C.I.C.I., Lombard General Insurance Co., Branch Office Lal Ganga Shopping Complex, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.CNo. 386 of 2011 .LAr APPELLANT ^T RESPONDENTS Shiv Kumar Tamrakar VERSUS Bhuneshwar Pras^d Sharma & others ^APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 (2) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Shri HB Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for the appeliant. 1. 2. 3. 4. ORALORDER (Passedon 14.09.2011) -^ Heard on admission. -»: This is owners' appeal agalnst the award dated 28.02.2011 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Clalms Tribunal Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 19/09. As against compensation of Rs. 23,50,000/- claimed by legal representatives of deceased Anjali Sharma by filing application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act') claiming compensation for the death of deceased in the motor accident on 09.01.09, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,44,500/- along wfth interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of applicatjon till its actual payment. ; The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held: the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of .-^"'^^ 'itssss^ •i T^ / •^, driver of Bus bearing registration No. CG-07-ZA-0277; Anjali Sharma died on account of injuries sustair^d in »e said accident; since offending Bus was not insured at the tlme of accident, exonerated the insurance corfipany from "rts liability to pay compensation to the claimants; assessed and awarded aforesaid amount of compensation in favour of claimants. 5. ' Shri HB Agrawal, learned Sr. counsel appearlng for the appellant would submit in order to obtain insurarrce cover, the appellant had paid amount of premium on 07.01.09. The vehtele was inspected at 7:15 am on 09.01.09 and therefore, policy of insurance would be operati^e from the midnight of the day and not from 1 1:21 am as mentioned in the policy (Ex. D/3). He would further contend since vehicle was inspected at 7:15 am, at the most, policyof insurance would be operative from 7:15 am and insurance company cannot be escaped from its tiability by taklng benefit of its own wrong i.e. by mentioning time of issuance of policy as 11:21 am in place of 7:15 am in the policy (Ex. D/3). For the above proposition, reliance has been placed by Shri Agrawal upon the judgment of Sujxeme Court in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal1 and judgment of Jammu & Kashmir High Court in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mst. Hajra and others2. 16. I have heard the counsel appearing for the appellant, perused the order impugned as Well as records ofthe Trlbunal. 1 1990(2)8cc 680 22004(3)TAC340(J&K) ^ 7. Entire controversy revolves around the time of Issuance of poUcy (Ex. D/3). 8. Admlttedly, the offending Bus met with an accident at 8:15 am on 09.01.09 resulting in death of Anjali Sharma and policy of insurance (Ex. D/3) was issued on 09.01.09 mentioning specifically time of commencement thereof as 11:21 am. 9. ' In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal (Supra), ft was held by the Supreme Court that in absence of any specific time mentioned in that behalf, the contract of insurance would be operative from the midnight of the day by opersrtion of the provisions of General Clauses Act, 1187. 10. Three Judges Bench of Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi3 approved the legal position adopted by Supreme Court in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal (Supra). However, the Supreme Court observed thus-"but in view of the speciat contract mentioned in the insurance policy, It would be operative from the time and date the insurance pollcy was taken. In that case, the insurance policy was taken at 4 pm on 25.10.1993 and the accident had occurred earlier thereto, the insurance coverage would not enable the claimant to seek recovery of the amount from the insurance company". 11. The question was again considered by another three judges Bench of Supreme Court in case of New Inctia Insuarnce Co. v. ; 1997(1)8cc 66 ^^s^^^. . •• ';y,.-ft '":•„ Bhagwati Devi4 in whsch the Supreme Court has he'd : in absence of any speciflc time and date, the insurance policy becomes operative from the previous midnight, but when the specific time and date is mentioned, ttlen the insurance policy becomes effective from that point of time. 12. The Supreme Court in case of Natlonal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sobina lakai (Smt.) & others5 has held : in onder to curb the widespread mischief of getting Insurance policies after the accidents, it Js absolutely imperatjve to cleariy hold that the effectiveness of the insurance policy would start from the time and date specificaily jncorporated in tSe policy and not from an earlier point of tjme. 13. Therefore, the position of law is now well settled. The court has to look into the contract of insurance to discern wheftier any particular time has been specifled for commencement or expiry of the policy, as the case may be. If a particular policy is issued mentioning therein particular time and date of its issuance then the policv would start from the time and date specifically incorporated in the policy and not from an eartier pointoftime. 14. Now reverting to the facte of the present case, Indisputably, the policy (Ex. D/3) has been tssued by responctent/insurance f company speciflcally stating the time of commencement , thereof as 11 :21 am. The appellant did not prove issuance of 4 1998 (6) SCC-534 5 2007 (7) SCC 786 so called vehicle inspection report (Ex. D/1) by examining its maker. Respondent/insurance company specifleally denied issuance of above inspection report. 15. Be that as it may, time of commencement of insurance shall be governed by the policy (Ex. D/3) wherein the time of commencement has been mentioned as 11:21 am, w4iereas the accident took place at 8:15 am on thesame date i.e. before issuance of policy, and therefore, the' insurance coverage (Ex. D/3) would not enable the appellant/owner to seek indemniflcation of the amount of compensation from the insurance company. • ^ 16. In view of above, l do not flnd any infirmity in the approach of Tribunal in exonerating the insurance company from its liabjlity to pay compensation to the claimants on the ground that insurance policy was not in force at the time o^ accident. 17. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Sahu