FAO No.2481 of 1997 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2481 of 1997 Date of Decision. 10.09.2010 National Insurance Company Ltd., Yamuna Nagar through its Manager ......Appellant Versus Roshni wd/o late Sh. Sewa Ram alias Sheo Ram and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Tajinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The insurance company is on appeal denying the liability on three grounds; one, the driver did not have a valid driving licence, two, there was no policy of insurance, three, the driver was not covered by the policy. 2. As regards the contention that the driver did not have a valid driving licence, it was elicited that the driver had a licence to drive a motor cycle and a car and did not have a specific licence to drive a tractor. The form and term of policy mentioned under Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not provide for any specific category of tractor and it was not elicited through evidence that a person, who had a driving licence for light motor vehicle was FAO No.2481 of 1997 -2- not competent to drive a tractor or that the licence, which is issued for light motor vehicle, will not be said to be a proper licence to drive a tractor. It is, however, urged in the grounds of appeal that for licence to drive a car, the fee is Rs.80/- and for obtaining a licence for a tractor, the fee is Rs.100/- more than what is provided for a car. The fee prescriptions by the Transport Authority is hardly relevant to what the statute requires. If it should ever be contended that the licence to drive a tractor itself shall be so specifically issued and a light motor vehicle cannot give an authority to a licence holder to drive a tractor, it should be elicited clearly through evidence to that effect. I have not the benefit of any particulars more than what obtain in the grounds of appeal that the fee for issue of licence for tractor and car are different. I reject the contention that the driver was not duly licenced. 3. As regards the contention that there was no valid policy of insurance, it is seen from the records that the accident took place on 03.01.1995 and the policy has been issued on 4.1.1995. The Tribunal still found that the policy must be taken to have commenced from an earlier date by the fact that admittedly the insured had paid the premium for the vehicle on 30.08.1994 through a cheque and the amount has also been received thereafter. The insurance company did not, however, issue the policy only by the fact that it required some particulars of the vehicle and that the insurance company itself was engaging the Land Mortgage Bank for information. Since there was no communication from the Bank, the policy could not be issued. The want of issue of policy seems more FAO No.2481 of 1997 -3- on account of the want of details with reference to the vehicle and it had no bearing to the commencement of the policy itself. In a recent judgment in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dharam Chand and others rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5204 of 2003, the issue was with reference to a cheque premium received by the insurance company on May 7, 1998 at 4 PM. The policy stated that it would commence from the next day namely from May 8, 1994. The accident took place on 7.05.1998 at 8.30 PM i.e. before the date mentioned in the policy but after the receipt of money by the insurance company. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the insurance must be deemed to have commenced from the date when the accident took place. This judgment covers the issue of what the learned counsel states. Even otherwise in this case if there had been some lapse on the part of the Bank in indicating the details of the Policy to the insurer, the insurer could not have retained the money for more than four months only to contend later, after an accident had taken place, that the policy had not yet commenced. If it ever were to be taken that they were unable to under-write a policy for want of particulars, they ought to have returned the money itself. Even on a quotient of justice and fairness, the insurer cannot take up such a plea after the accident had occurred. 4. It is lastly contended that the deceased was sitting on a mudguard, for whom there was no policy of insurance. This issue was never stated either in the pleadings nor before the Tribunal nor indeed found in the grounds of appeal. It cannot be permitted to be FAO No.2481 of 1997 -4- taken an argument with no basis in the pleadings. 5. All the contentions of the insurance company are rejected. The awards of the Tribunal are confirmed the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 10, 2010 Pankaj*