High Court of Karnataka Allows Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Policy Taken After Accident Not Valid. Insurer Not Liable Where Insurance Policy Was Issued After the Accident Occurred, as Premium Paid Post-Accident Cannot Cover Pre-Existing Risk.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD In Favour of Accused
  • 7
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves an appeal by the United India Insurance Company against the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bidar, which had allowed a claim petition filed by the claimant Yeshappa. The claimant was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 7.5.2008 at about 1:00 p.m. while traveling in a Maxi Cab bearing registration No.KA-32-1568, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,60,200/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition. The insurance company appealed, contending that it was not liable to pay compensation because the insurance policy for the offending vehicle was taken after the accident. The facts revealed that the earlier policy had expired on 9.2.2008, and the premium for a new policy was paid on 7.5.2008 at 2:21 p.m., which was about 1 hour and 21 minutes after the accident occurred at 1:00 p.m. The insurance company argued that since the policy was not in force at the time of the accident, it could not be held liable. The court examined the evidence, including the FIR (Ex.P1) and complaint (Ex.P2) showing the accident time, and the policy documents showing the premium payment time. The court agreed with the insurance company, holding that the policy was taken after the accident and therefore the insurer was not liable. The court set aside the award against the insurance company and directed the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation. The appeal was allowed.

Headnote

A) Motor Vehicles Act - Insurance - Liability of Insurer - Policy Taken After Accident - The insurer is not liable to pay compensation where the insurance policy was issued after the accident occurred, as the risk was not covered at the time of accident. The court held that the premium paid at 2:21 p.m. on the date of accident cannot cover an accident that occurred at 1:00 p.m. on the same day. (Paras 4-6)

B) Motor Vehicles Act - Evidence - Burden of Proof - The insurer must prove that the policy was taken after the accident by adducing evidence such as policy documents and premium receipt. In this case, the insurer successfully proved that the earlier policy expired on 9.2.2008 and the new policy was issued on 7.5.2008 at 2:21 p.m., after the accident at 1:00 p.m. (Paras 4-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation when the insurance policy was taken after the accident had already occurred.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal allowed. The judgment and award dated 28.09.2011 in MVC No.142/2009 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT-II, Bidar, is set aside insofar as it fastens liability on the appellant-insurance company. The owner of the vehicle (respondent No.2) is directed to pay the compensation awarded to the claimant.

Law Points

  • Insurance policy taken after accident is invalid
  • Insurer not liable for accident occurring before policy inception
  • Burden of proof on insurer to show policy was taken after accident
  • Section 173(1) Motor Vehicles Act
  • 1988
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (KAR) (09) 104

M.F.A.No.30070/2012 (MV)

2020-09-25

P. Krishna Bhat

Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi for Appellant; Sri Basavaraj R. Math for R1; Sri S.K.Babshetty for R2

The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Main Road, Near Ambedkar Circle, Bidar, Now Represented by its Sr.Divisional Manager, Gulbarga

Yeshappa s/o Siddappa, Subhash s/o Bakkappa Matanshetty

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against judgment and award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

Remedy Sought

Insurance company sought to set aside the award fastening liability on it to pay compensation

Filing Reason

Insurance company contended that the policy was taken after the accident and thus it is not liable

Previous Decisions

Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,60,200/- with interest at 6% p.a. against the insurance company

Issues

Whether the insurance company is liable when the policy was taken after the accident?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant-insurance company argued that the earlier policy expired on 9.2.2008 and the premium for new policy was paid on 7.5.2008 at 2:21 p.m., after the accident at 1:00 p.m., so no liability. Respondent-claimant argued that the policy was in force at the time of accident.

Ratio Decidendi

An insurance policy taken after the occurrence of an accident does not cover the risk arising from that accident. The insurer is not liable to pay compensation for an accident that occurred before the policy was issued.

Judgment Excerpts

The earlier policy of insurance issued to the offending Maxi Cab by the appellant had expired on 9.2.2008 itself. Thereafter the premium was paid for issue of policy of insurance only on 7.5.2008 at 2.21 p.m. She pointed out that this was about 1 ½ hours after the accident. In the light of the above, the appeal is allowed.

Procedural History

Claim petition MVC No.142/2009 was filed before the MACT, Bidar, which awarded compensation on 28.09.2011. The insurance company appealed to the High Court of Karnataka under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Acts & Sections

  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 173(1)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim — Policy Taken After Accident Not Valid. Insurer Not Liable Where Insurance Policy Was Issued After the Accident Occurred, as Premium Paid Post-Accident Cannot Cover ...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeals in SARFAESI Auction Case, Reinstating DRT Order and Sale. High Court's Writ Jurisdiction Improper When Statutory Remedy Available; Auction Deposit Complied with Rules and Property Not Exempt as Agricultural Land Under Sec...