Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus SUNITA RATH! AND ORS.

Decided
4 December 1997
Judges listed
J.S. VERMA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 200 · 1997 INSC 789
Also cited as
  • (1998) 1 SCC 365 (30 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1998 SC 257 (7 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 5 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

VERMA, CJ. This appeal by the insurer involves for decision only a short point relating to its liability under the policy of insurance issued subsequent to the accident even though it was issued some time later on the same day. The Tribunal as well as the High Court have held against the insurer placing reliance on the two-Judge Bench decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal & Ors., [1990] 2 SCR 570. The question is whether that decision has been correctly applied in the facts of the present case.

p. 201, margin D

The motor accident occurred on 10th December, '1991 at 2.20 PM. It was only thereafter the same day at 2.55 PM. that the insurance policy and the cover note were obtained by the insured, owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. There is express mention in the cover note that the effective date and time of commencement of the insurance for the purpose of the Act was 10th December, 1991 at 2.55 PM. The applicability of the decision in Ram Dayal's case (supra) has to be considered on these facts. In our opinion the decision in Ram Dayal's case (supra) is distinguishable and has no application to the facts of this case. The facts of that decision show that the time of issuance of the Policy was not mentioned therein and the question, therefore, was of presumption when the date alone was mentioned and not the time at which the insurance was to become effective on that date. In such a situation, it was held in Ram Dayal's case (supra) that in the absence of any specific time being mentioned, the logical inference to draw was that insurance became effective from the previous mid-night and, therefore, for an accident which took place on the date of the policy, the insurer became iiable. There is no such difficulty in the present case in view of the clear finding based on undisputed facts that the accident occurred at 2.20 PM and the cover note was obtained only thereafter at 2.55 PM in which it was expressly mentioned that the effective date and· time of commenceni'ent of the insurance for the purpose of the Act was 10.12.1991 at 2.55 PM. The reliance on Ram Dayal's case (supra) by the Tribunal and the High Court was, therefore, mis-placed, we find that in a similar situation, the same view which we have taken, was also the view in Mis. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi & Ors., (1996) 8 SCALE 695, wherein Ram Dayal's case (supra) was distinguished on. the same basis.

pp. 201–202, margin E

It follows that the insurer cannot be held liable on the basis of the above policy in the present case and, therefore, the liability has to be of the owner of the vehicle. However, we find the High Court, without assigning any reason, has simply assumed that the owner of the vehicle was not liable and. that the insurer alone was liable in the present case. This conclusion, reached by the High Court, is clearly erroneous. The liability of the insurer arises only when the liability of the insured has been upheld for the purpose of indemnifying the insured under the contract of insurance. There is, thus, a basic fallacy in the conclusion reached by the High Court on this point.

p. 202, margin C

The question now is of the final order to make in the present case. We find that the insurer has made the payment to the claimants in the present case in satisfaction of the entire claim and it has been fairly stated by the insurer that this appeal was filed only for getting a decision on this point pertaining to its liability in such a situation. In the circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to say that the amount already paid by the insurer to the claimants is not required to be refunded by the claimants to the insurer.

p. 202, margin E

For th::, aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court and Tribunal are set aside. However, as indicated earlier, the claimants are not required to refund the amount already paid to them by the insurer. TN.A. Appeal allowed.

p. 202, margin G