Aggrieved against the order passed by the State Commission in FA No. 1395/05, dated 18.04.2006, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., the petitioner herein, which was the opposite party before the District Forum, has filed the present revision petition. The State Commission, by the impugned order has set aside the order passed by the District Forum  and directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs. 67,530/- to the respondent/complainant with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of repudiation, till realization. 

              Briefly, the facts are that respondent/complainant who is the owner of Truck bearing No. PB-02-D-9696, obtained a policy in respect of the said truck from the petitioner - company for the period 18.06.2003 to 17.06.2004 against cover note dated 17.06.2003 on payment of the premium in cash at 11.30 AM on the same date, i.e. 17.06.2003.  The said truck met with an accident on 17.06.2003 at about 10.00 PM.  Respondent/complainant lodged a claim with the petitioner company.  Petitioner Company appointed a Surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs. 67,530/-.  Later on, the petitioner repudiated the claim on the ground that the risk under the policy commenced for the period from mid-night of 18.06.2003 to 17.06.2004 whereas the accident had taken place on 17.06.2003 at 10.00 PM and that at the time of the accident, there was no insurance of the truck in question.

          Being aggrieved, respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum challenging the repudiation of the claim which was contested by the petitioner on the aforesaid ground.

          District Forum, vide its order dated 20.06.2005, dismissed the complaint of the respondent/complainant holding that at the time of the accident, there was no insurance of the truck in question and, therefore, repudiation of the petitioner – company was valid.

            Respondent/complainant, being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, filed appeal before the State Commission.

            State Commission allowed the appeal of the respondent/ complainant holding that the risk under the policy will commence from the date and time of payment of premium and since the premium was received by the petitioner at 11.30 AM on 17.06.2003, the policy would be deemed to have been issued at 11.30 AM on 17.06.2003 itself, and as such, under the policy, the risk in respect of the damage to the truck was covered and the repudiation of the claim was illegal and wrong.  The State Commission directed the petitioner to settle the claim at Rs. 67,530/- as assessed by the Surveyor, with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of repudiation, till payment. 

          Counsel for the petitioner - Insurance company contends that the respondent had purchased the policy in question commencing w.e.f. mid-night of 18.06.2003  to 17.06.2004 and accordingly, the policy in question was issued covering risk from 18.06.2003 and hence, the risk under the policy will be deemed to be covered as stipulated in the policy in question.  He further submits that the State Commission erred in assuming that since the insurance premium was paid on 17.06.2003 at 11.30 AM, the risk in respect of the truck was deemed to commence from payment of insurance premium.  Counsel for the petitioner in support of his proposition, relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Sobina Iakai (Smt.) & Ors. – (2007) 7 SCC 786.

          Counsel for the respondent has suppoted the judgment (supra), on the reasons given in the order.

          After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the State Commission has erred in assuming that since the insurance premium was paid at 11.30AM on 17.06.2003, the risk in respect of the truck in question will be deemed to be covered from the date and time of payment of the insurance premium and not from the date mentioned in the policy from which it was to come into operation.  In the policy, it is clearly mentioned that the policy would come into operation from mid-night of 18.06.2003 and it would be valid till 17.06.2004.   Respondent,  while  taking the cover note, did not object to the date and time of  commencement of  the  policy  w.e.f. 18.06.2003.  The Supreme Court, in the aforesaid case  has  clearly held that  the  policy would commence from the time and date indicated in the policy.    It  has  been  held  in  the aforesaid case, as

under :

“In the absence of any specific time mentioned in the policy, the contract would be operative from the mid-night of the day by operation of the provisions of the General Clauses Act but in view of the special contract mentioned in the insurance policy, the effectiveness of the policy would start from the time and date indicated in the policy.  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 been brought to the attention of the court where insurance policies are taken immediately after the accidents to get compensation in a clandestine manner.  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”.

          Since the order passed by the State Commission runs counter to the judgment of the Supreme Court (supra), the same is set aside and that of the District Forum is restored. Revision petition is, therefore, allowed and parties will bear their own costs.