FAO No.2288 of 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2288 of 1999 Date of Decision. 06.09.2010 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Deputy Manager, Regional Office No.2, Kailash Building, 5th floor, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi ......Appellant Versus Sharifan wd/o Deen Mohammad and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Amrita Nagpal, Advocate for Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate 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 challenging the liability on the ground that at the relevant date of the accident namely on 18.11.1996, there was no valid insurance policy. The basis of such contention was that the policy had originally been taken by Dr. Deepankar Boss, who had purchased the policy on 29.05.1995 that was to be valid till 28.05.1996. By a transfer of his vehicle, he transferred the policy also on 22.12.1995 and the insurance company instead of marking the date of expiry of the policy as to 28.05.1996, it had issued a fresh policy in favour of his wife upto 21.12.1996. This, according to the learned counsel, was a FAO No.2288 of 1999 -2- clerical mistake and the insurance company could not be made liable. The transfer and the transferee must have been known that the policy had expired on 28.05.1996 itself and beyond that period, there was no valid insurance at all. 2. The policy of insurance is merely a specie of contract governed by contractual liability and if the term of a policy would extend a cover of insurance upto the date mentioned in the transferee policy, it ought to bind the insurer. If there was a mistake, the mistake should have been the basis for cancellation at the appropriate time, when the mistake was found. Such a mistake cannot be unearthed to the detriment of a claimant, who has a right of enforcement of his award against the insurer and so too it cannot prejudice the insured, who has a right to indemnity against any claim unless he had participated in any fraud or made a wrong impression to the insurer to make a mistake in the policy. The mistake if at all could extend no more than to secure an additional pro rata premium for the period, which was covered under the policy. That is the only benefit that the insurer could secure through this judgment i.e. securing an additional premium on a pro rata basis for a period from 29.05.1996 to 21.12.1996. 3. The award of the Tribunal casting the liability only on the insurer and providing also a right of indemnity to the insured was perfectly justified and I do not find any scope for interference. The appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 06, 2010 Pankaj*