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 PORSELVI & ANR

Decided
2 April 2009
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 289 · 2009 INSC 453
Also cited as
  • (2009) 15 SCC 116 (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.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

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. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 290

2

Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant under Sec.1i3 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act').

p. 290, margin C

3

The factual position is almost undisputed and :he only dispute relates to the date of commencement of the policy i.e. the date from which the policy was in operation. The <1ccident took place on 28/5/1996. The policy covers the period from 29.5.1996 to 28.5.1997. The High Court in para 1~, of the impugned judgment held as follows: "As the cover note has already been issued on 28.5.1996 itself, which is also entered in Ex. 81, Policy, the finding of the Tribunal fastening liability on the a1)pellant cannot be termed as perverse. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in this appeal. The q Jantum of compensation has not been disputed by the app13llant- Insurance Company. In the result, the Civil Miscell:ineous Appeal fails and the same is dismissed."

p. 290, margin C

4

Learned counsel for the appellant brought to oUJ· notice the cover note which clearly indicates that the policy was valid from 29.5.1996 to 28.5.1997 though it was issLed on ~-- 28.5.1996. A copy of the policy was brought on record. Relevant portion thereof reads as follows: "Effective date of commencement of insurance for the purpose of the Act, from O'clock on (date) 29.5.1996 to midnight of 28.5.1997."

pp. 290–291, margin F

5

A three Judge Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sita Bai (Smt.) and Ors. [(1999) 7 SCC 575) inter alia observed as follows: "6. The correctness and applicability of the judgment in Ram Dayal case [(1990) 2 sec 680] came up for consideration before this Court subsequently in a number of cases. In New India Assurance Co. v. Bhagwati Devi [(1998) 6 SCC 534] a three-Judge Bench of this Court relied upon the view taken in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi [(1997) 1 SCC 66] wherein it has been held that if there is a special contract, mentioning in the policy the time when it was bought; the insurance policy would be operative from that time and not from the previous midnight as was the case in Ram Dayal case where no time from which the insurance policy was to become effective had been mentioned. It was held that should there be no contract to the contrary, an insurance policy becomes operative from the previous midnight, when bought during the day following, but in cases where there is a mention of the specific time for the purchase of the policy, then a special contract comes into being and the policy becomes effective from the time mentioned in the cover note/the policy itself. The judgment in Jikubhai case has been subsequently followed in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi [1998) 1 SCC 365] by a three- Judge Bench of this Court also.

p. 291, margin A

6

Since the effect of the aforesaid factual position has not been considered by the High Court we set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter for fresh considerat.ion in accordance with law.

p. 291, margin F

7

The appeal is disposed of. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 291, margin G