IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1676 of 2005() ----------------------- OP(MV).822/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT: APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, T.P.CELL, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENTS: APPLICANT & RESSPONDENTS 1 , 2 & ADDL.R4 ------------------------------------------------------- 1. D.GOPI, S/O.DAVEED, KALLIVILA PUTHENVEEDU, MELEKONAM, PARASUVAIKKAL P.O., (VIA)PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. C.KAMALAMBIKA, HOUSE NO.15/78, BHDARA BHAVAN, CHELLAPPA NAGAR, CHEMPANVILAI P.O., K.K.DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. 3. C.NELSON, KARIVILAKKATTUVILAI, MEKKEMANDANOM P.O., K.K.DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. 4. DHARMAJAN, POTTALKUZHI, AMMADIVILA P.O., K.K.DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN FOR R1 SRI.SAIJO HASSAN FOR R1 SRI.A.S.SABU FOR R1 SRI.SAJU.S.A FOR R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ----------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No.1676 of 2005 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of November , 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair .J, This appeal is filed challenging the award passed by the M.A.C.T, directing the appellant/Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the 1st respondent herein. The claim of the appellant is that the insurance policy was issued only with effect from 28.3.1996 and the accident occurred on the day previous to that date. . The M.A.C.T. however noticed that the policy was issued on 27.3.1996 at 4 P.M, after receipt of premium and insurance coverage starts from the date of payment of premium. Since the accident itself happened on 27.3.1996 at 5.P.M. it was held that at the time of the accident, the vehicle had a valid insurance policy. Another contention raised by the appellant is that the registered owner/2nd respondent herself gave evidence before the M.A.C.T to the effect that the proposal was not signed by her. We are surprised as to how the insurance Company can issue a policy based on a proposal not signed by the applicant. If the proposal was not signed, the Insurance Company must return it. On the other hand it accepted the premium amount and the proposal and issued a policy with effect from the next date. We feel the insured is entitled to get the policy from the date of submission of the proposal along with the payment of premium . There is no case for the Insurance Company that the proposal was M.A.C.A. No.1676 of 2005 -2- submitted after the accident. In fact in this case the policy was issued on 27.3.1996 at 4 P.M and there was no justification in postponing the effective date of the policy by a day by the Insurance Company. We therefore uphold the order of the M.A.C.T. holding that the appellant is liable to pay compensation . Consequently we dismiss this appeal. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) es. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. --------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 1676 of 2005 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 12th November, 2008