The present appeal from order filed by the Appellant-Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated 12.07.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ 3rd Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Claim Petition No.131 of 2018, "Smt. Yashwanti Devi & Others Vs. Varun Dixit & Others". By the said order, the Claim Petition filed by the claimants/ respondent nos.1 to 4 was allowed and a sum of ₹3,94,000/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing claim petition till the date of actual payment is awarded in favour of the claimants.

2025:UHC:7186

2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the claimants are that, on 07.02.2018, husband of respondent no.1/claimant, Late Shri Gainda Singh, who was a labour, was going for work along with Rinku and Udayvir Singh. A tourist bus bearing no.UP-22 AT-0403, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner hit cycle of husband of respondent no.1/ claimant. Husband of respondent no.1/claimant was taken to hospital but he died on his way to hospital. The post mortem was conducted at Government Hospital, Bijnaur on 08.02.2018 and FIR was registered against driver of the offending vehicle at Kotwali Afzalgarh. It was contended that the deceased was 42 years old and was earning ₹10,000/- per month, as such, a claim of ₹27,00,000/- was raised.

3. Owner and driver of the offending vehicle filed their written statement and denied the fact that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently. Owner of the offending vehicle (respondent no.5) submitted that vehicle was having all the relevant valid documents; was insured with the appellant and liability to pay the claim was of the insurance company.

4. Driver of the vehicle / respondent no.6 contended that he was having the valid driving license and the bus was not being driven in a rash and negligent manner and the accident did not occur from his bus. The appellant/respondent no.3 in the claim petition, filed its reply and contended that there was no 2 2025:UHC:7186 cause of action against the insurance company as there was no compliance of Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act. It was also contended that the insurance policy was issued on 07.02.2018 at 10:35 a.m. and the accident occurred on the same day at 8:30 a.m., as such, the vehicle was not insured at the time of accident and the liability was of the owner.

5. Learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal framed the following issues with regard to the accident:-

6. Learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, on 3 2025:UHC:7186 the basis of the evidence recorded before it, came to a conclusion that the accident took place on 07.02.2018 at 8:30 a.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and there was no negligence on behalf of the deceased. The issue no.1 and 2 was decided in favour of the claimants and against respondent nos.5 and 6, who are owner and driver of the offending vehicle. This Court does not find any perversity in the said finding of the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. Moreover, there is no challenge to the said finding by the appellant or respondent no.5 and 6. So far as issue no.3,4 and 5 are concerned, the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal concluded that the vehicle was insured with the appellant/insurance company and the claimants are entitled for compensation from the insurance company.

7. Insurance company has filed the present appeal on the ground that the offending vehicle was not insured with the appellant/insurance company and, as such, there was no liability of the appellant/insurance company to pay the compensation. It was pleaded in the written statement that the proposal of the vehicle was prepared on 07.02.2018 at 10:30 a.m. and the insurance policy was issued at 10:35 a.m. on the same date. The appellant, as such, contended that such specific stand taken in the written statement was not considered by the learned Tribunal.

8. The learned Tribunal took note of statement 4 2025:UHC:7186 of DW1 Ravikrishan Garg, who was serving in the insurance company, he had stated that owner of vehicle Varun Dixit came to his home at 8:00 a.m. with Bus bearing No.UP-22A T0403 Chasis No.MB1PCEHD7GEAV4690 and insurance of the said vehicle was done by the appellant/insurance company. Learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that statement of Ravi Krishan Garg was not disputed by the appellant/insurance company and, as such, the same cannot be discarded and it was held that the premium was received on behalf of the company and that the vehicle in question was insured.

9. Learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4/claimants and learned counsel for respondent nos.5 and 6 (owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively) supported the judgment passed by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal and placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dharam Chand reported in 2010 (15) SCC 141 and the judgment passed by High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in the case of Smt. Renuka Sethi and Others Vs. Babu Sahu and Another in FAO No.480 of 2012.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sobina Iakai (Smt.) and Others reported in (2007) 7 SCC 786 and contended that as 5 2025:UHC:7186 the insurance proposal was issued on 07.02.2018 at 10:30 a.m. and the insurance policy was issued on 07.02.2018 at 10:35 a.m. after the premium was received, as such, the policy became operative from the time and date as incorporated in the insurance policy and the effectiveness of the policy would start from the time and date mentioned in the policy and not from the earlier point of time.

11. On the basis of rival contentions raised by the parties, the following issue arise for determination before this Court:-

12 The statement of Ravi Krishan Garg, employee of the Insurance Company makes a reference that the bus owner visited his house on 07.02.2018 at 8:00 a.m. and insurance of the vehicle was done by his insurance company. There is no mention whether the premium was received by him at the same time and there was no suggestion from the claimants that the said premium was received on 8:00 a.m. and the policy was issued at the said time.

2025:UHC:7186

13. More surprisingly, there was no statement recorded by Shri Ravi Krishan Garg only the cross- examination is recorded. However, it is not clear who examined Shri Ravi Krishan Garg and whether any cross-examination could be held in absence of any statement recorded by Shri Ravi Krishan Garg. The document (Paper No.49B) which refers to the alleged statement of Ravi Krishan Garg is extracted below:-

14. Paper No.49B (49 Kha) read as under:

15. Thus it is clear that there is no mention of the time as to when premium was received by Ravi Krishan Garg. The insurance company's proposal form bears the endorsement of its issuance on 07.02.2018 at 10:30 a.m. and the certificate of insurance which depicts effective date for commencement of insurance for the purpose of the Act endorses the date of 07.02.2018 and time is 10:35 hours. The said documents were marked as Paper No.48C-3 (48Ga/3) and 48-C4 (48Ga/4). Thus, the Court is of the opinion that learned 7 2025:UHC:7186 Tribunal fell into error while placing reliance on the statement of Ravi Krishan Garg and failed to take notice of the documents Paper No.48C-3 and 48-C4 which clearly reveal the effectiveness of the insurance policy.

16. The reliance placed by learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4/claimants on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dharam Chand reported in 2010 (15) SCC 141 and the judgment passed by High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in the case of Smt. Renuka Sethi and Others Vs. Babu Sahu and Another in FAO No.480 of 2012 (supra) is misplaced as the facts of aforesaid cases were different as in the aforesaid case decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court the cover note was issued on 07.05.1998 at 4:00 p.m., however, the date of commencement was mentioned as 08.05.1998 and as such the counsel for the insurance company has stated that as the premium was received on 07.05.1998 through cheque as such the commencement date would be of 07.05.1998 whereas in the present case it is the specific case of the insurance company that proposal form was issued on 07.02.2018 at 10:30 a.m. and insurance policy was issued at 10:35 a.m.

17. The issue as to when the policy becomes operative was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sobina 8 2025: UHC:7186 Iakai (Smt.) and Others (supra) wherein it was held as under:-

But in view of the special contract mentioned in the insurance policy, it would be operative from the time and date the insurance policy was taken. In that case, the insurance policy was taken at 4.00 p.m. on 25-10-1983 and the accident had occurred earlier thereto. This Court held (at SCC p. 67, para 3) that "the insurance coverage would not enable the claimant to seek recovery of the amount from the appellant Company".

16. Another three-Judge Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi [(1998) 1 SCC 365] dealt with similar facts. In this case, the accident occurred at 2.20 p.m. and the cover note 9 2025:UHC:7186 was obtained only thereafter at 2.55 p.m. The Court observed that the policy would be effective from the time and date mentioned in the policy.

17. In New India Assurance Co. v. Bhagwati Devi [(1998) 6 SCC 534] this Court observed that, in absence of any specific time and date, the insurance policy becomes operative from the previous midnight. But when the specific time and date is mentioned, then the insurance policy becomes effective from that point of time. This Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sita Bai [(1999) 7 SCC 575 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1322] and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chinto Devi [(2000) 7 SCC 50 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1272] has taken the same view.

18. In J. Kalaivani v. K. Sivashankar [(2007) 7 SCC 792 : JT (2001) 10 SC 396] this Court has reiterated clear enunciation of law. The Court observed that it is the obligation of the court to look into the contract of insurance to discern whether any particular time has been specified for commencement or expiry of the policy. A very large number of cases have come to our notice where insurance policies are taken immediately after the accidents to get compensation in a clandestine manner.

19. In order to curb this widespread mischief of getting insurance policies after the accidents, it is absolutely imperative to clearly hold that the effectiveness of the insurance policy would start from the time and date specifically incorporated in the policy and not from an earlier point of time."

18. In view of the discussion made above, it is held that learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal erred while coming to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was having valid insurance cover. Thus the respondent nos.1 to 4/ claimants were not entitled to any compensation from the insurance company. The appeal by the insurance company is allowed and the order passed by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal is set aside so far as it relates to the direction issued for payment of compensation to the claimants from the insurance company. The statutory deposit made by the 10 2025:UHC:7186 Insurance Company before this Court be released in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company. The records of the trial be sent back to the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal concerned.

19. Respondent nos.1 to 4/ claimants would be entitled for the compensation as determined by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal from the owner i.e. respondent no.5. Respondent no.5 is directed to pay the compensation of ₹3,94,000/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing claim petition to the claimants in the ratio as determined by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ IIIrd Additional District Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) 14.08.2025 Sukhbant SUKHBANT Digitally signed by SUKHBANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129a8a638 SINGH 0d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B7D72C 42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH Date: 2025.08.14 14:03:16 +05'30' 11