V RAVI Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
LAWS(CAL)-1996-7-9
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on July 31,1996

V.RAVI Appellant
VERSUS
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO VS. VINOD KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2007-4-31] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. DEGALA SATYANARAYANAMMA [LAWS(APH)-2004-6-49] [REFERRED TO]
MADHUKURI RAGHU RAM MURTHY VS. KOYYADA SAKKU BAI [LAWS(APH)-2004-9-124] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD VS. MINA MITRA [LAWS(CAL)-2003-2-11] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD VS. SUSHILABAI [LAWS(BOM)-2010-4-173] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SMT. BASANTI BAGCHI AND ANOTHER [LAWS(CAL)-1997-9-61] [REFERRED TO]
SILLI MAN SUBBA VS. MAN BAHADUR SUBBA [LAWS(SIK)-2014-11-6] [REFERRED]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD VS. JAYESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2022-1-779] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

SATYABRATA SINHA, J. - (1.)This appeal is directed against an award dated 14-81995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MACT Case No. 5 of (sic) whereby and whereunder the said learned tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 14,000/- in favour of the claimants in respect of an accident which took place in between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. on 18-2-1992, but held the owner of the vehicle liable therefor.
(2.)This appeal living been filed by the owner and involving a question as to whether the appellant or the respondent No. 1 (insurer) was liable to pay the aforementioned awarded amount, we are not concerned with the fact of the matter, suffice it to say that admittedly the appellant is the owner of a truck bearing registration No. AN 5101. The said truck met with an accident in between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. on 18-2-1992, as a result whereof a little girl was ran over and the house belonging to the claimant was damaged According to the appellant, earlier insurance in respect of the vehicle in question expired on 16th or 17th Feb. 1992, and he entered into a contract of insurance with the respondent No. 1 at 10 a.m. on 18-2-1992. In its written statement the respondent No. 1 (opposite party No. 2 before the tribunal) alleged:"
The opposite party No. 2 further states that in view of 64V(1) of the Insurance Act the risk on the part of the insurer commences only on the payment of the premium by the insured and not as per the date of certificate of insurance, inadvertantly typed by the typist and given in favour of the opposite party, No. 1. Hence the opposite party No. 2 states that it is an unfortunate situation which has arisen in this case which the opposite party No. 1 is now trying to take advantage of, which is most unethical."

(3.)On the basis of the aforementioned pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed several issues out of which we are concerned with issue No. 3, which reads thus:"
Is the O. P. No. 2 liable to pay any amount of compensation claimed?"

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.