LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus SMT. JIKUBHAI NATHUJI DABHI AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 929 · Decided: 20-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI, K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

MIS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
A 
~. 
v. 
SMT. JIKUBHAI NATHUJI DABHI AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 20, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANA VAT! AND 
B 
K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Insurance : 
Insurance policy-Insurance of motor vehicle-Renewal premium- c 
Not paid within renewal date-Effect of-Renewal premium due to be paid 
on 14. /0.1983-Premium paid at 4 P.M. on 25. I 0.1983-Insurance policy 
remained under suspension from 14.10.1983 to 25./0.1983 till 4 P.M-
Contract of renewal came into force at 4. 00 P.M on 25.10.1983-Accident 
took place at 11.14 A.M on 25. /0.1983-Liability of insurance company-
Held, in view of special contract mentioned in insurance policy, namely it D 
would be operative from 4. 00 P.M on 25. I 0.1983, the insurance coverage 
would not enable the claimant to seek recovery of the amount from the 
insurance company-Claimant is at liberty to make any claim against owner 
of the vehicle. 
New India Assurance Co. v.Ram Dayal, 1199012 SCR 570, referred E 
to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2671 of 
1991. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.89 of the Gujarat High 
Court in F.A. No. 1366 of 1989. 
Jitander Sharma, Mrs. Gunwat Dara, Ms. Minakshi Vij. P. Gaur for 
the Appellant. 
G 
; 
H.A. Raichura for the Respondent in C.A. No. 2671/91. 
-
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal by special leave is cofined to the question as to whether H 
929 
. 
930 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A the accident had occurred during the operation of the insurance policy in 
controversy. The admitted position is that the renewal of the insurance 
,., 
was effected as under : 
"Address: Jal Apartment, ....... Pd. Vile Parle (N) Bombay. 5. 
B 
It is hereby understood and agreed that the renewal premium 
of Rs. 1307 only under this Policy having been paid on 
25.10.1983 and not within the renewal date viz.14.10.1983 
the Insurance by this Policy is suspended from 14.10.1983 
(4." p.m.) to 24.10.1983. 
c 
Further, it is declared and agreed that the cover under this 
Policy is reinstated and renewed for a further period of twelve 
months from 25.10.1983 to 24.10.1984 at a premium of Rs. 
-
1307." 
D 
The Tribunal also had recorded, as a fact, that on October 25, 1983 
at 4.00 p.m. the contract of renewal had come into force and it would be 
operative upto October 24, 1984. The Tribunal also recorded, as a fact, 
that the accident had occured on October 25, ! 983 at 11.14 a.m. that is, 
before the renewal <if the contract. Under these circumstances, it would 
clear that the accident had occurred when the renewal had not taken effect. 
E 
This Court in New India Assurance Co v. Ram Dayal, [1990] 2 SCR 
570, had held that in the absence of any specific time mentioned in that 
behalf, the contract would be operative from the mid-night of the day by 
operation of provisions of the General Clauses Act. But in view of the 
F 
special contract mentioned in the insurance policy, namely, it would be 
operative from 4.00 p.m. on October 25, 1983 and the accident had occurred 
earlier thereto, the insurance coverage would not enable, and claimant to 
seek recovery of the amount from the appellant-Company. 
The appeal is accordingly allowed only to the above extent. In respect 
G of any claim against the owner, the respondent is at liberty to have it 
recovered. No costs. 
.. -
R.P. 
Appeal allowed.