Commencement of Policy and Breach of Policy:

Commencement of Policy and Breach of Policy:

Policy – commencement of premium accepted on 3.5.97 but

cover note specified the effective date of commencement as

5.5.97, as 3.5.97 was holiday IC contended that at the date of

accident i.e.4.5.97, there was not effective policy in existence whether IC is liable. Held; yes contract of insurance comes in to

effect from the date of acceptance of premium more particularly

when IC had received the premium prior to the date of accident.

2011ACJ 1728 (BOM).

Accident occurred on 20.5.85 at 7.45 pm IP valid from 20.5.85 to 19.5.86 IP does not speak about the time of commencement of policy when policy is silent about the time of its commencement, starting time has to be taken as from the midnight of 20.5.85 and its ends at 2400 hrs on 19.5.86 Ic held liable.

 2011ACJ 2394 (DEL).

An insurance policy, in law, could be issued from a future date. A policy, however, which is issued from a future date must be with the consent of the holder of the policy. The insurance company cannot issue a policy unilaterally from a future date without the consent of the holder of a policy – 2009 (13) SCC 370 – Blabir Kaur v/s N.I.A.Com.

U/s 147 (1)Insurance Act u/s 64VBIC tried to avoid its liability on the ground that police has not come into existence as verification of vehicle was not done whether sustainable. Held ; No once

premium is paid, IC cannot avoid its liability 2012ACJ 1322.

Commencement of policy starts when? It starts when

entire amount of premium is paid/made and it does not make

any difference when policy is made effective.2013 ACJ 2493

(Mad)O.I. Com. v/s Venkataraman, dated 18.07.2012.

Section 64VB – commencement of policy – whether IC

can defer assumption of risk to a later point of time other than

from the date and time of receipt of the premium? Held ; No.

Insurance Policy (IP) under the MV Act stand on different

footing than the other IP. 2014

ACJ 2847 (Chh) – SC judgments followed.

One of the grounds which is available to the Insurance

Company for denying its statutory liability is that the policy is

void having been obtained by reason of non – disclosure of a

material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in

some material particular once a valid contract is entered into,

only because of a mistake, the name of original owner not been

mentioned in the certificates of registration, it cannot be said

that the contract itself is void unless it was shown that in

obtaining the said contract, a fraud has been practiced no

particulars of fraud pleaded IC held liable. 2009 (1) SCC 58.

Private vehicle breach of policy in FIR it is stated that

vehicle was hired IC disputed its liability relying on the word

‘hired’ in FIR eye witnesses deposed that vehicle was ‘borrowed’

from the friend and denied that it was ‘hired’ whether

IC is liable. Held ; yes as IC has neither confronted the witnesses with the statement made by them in FIR nor examined the IO or RTO officer. 2011ACJ 1482 (SIK).

Liability of IC in tariff, under 'Limits of Liability' it is mentioned 'As required by Law' and not 'Act Policy' – words explained. In such situation, IC is liable to pay awarded by the Tribunal.                2012 AAC 3136.

Farmer's Package Policy Tractor – trolley purpose  – use of guideline for assessment of liability of IC. 2014 ACJ 1691(Mad).

Contention that accident occurred on 27.11.1992 at 12.30 pm and policy was obtained at 3.30 pm on the same day without disclosing fact accident and, therefore, IC is not liable. Whether

sustainable? Held ; No.

Since IC failed to prove that policy came into existence w.e.f. 27.11.1992 at 3.30 pm. 2015 ACJ 1347 (Jhr).

Owner of the offending vehicle did not file written statement neither adduced any evidence that before the date of accident, premium was paid by him and IC issued Cover note on the basis. IC also disputed that said cover note was forged – Under these circumstances, IC held not liable to pay compensation.          2015 ACJ 1824 (Bom).