Judgment related to Cover Note under MV Act:

Judgment related to  Cover Note under MV Act:

 

 

1.Responden No.2 was the owner of a Mini Bus. An insurance policy in respect of the said vehicle was sought to be taken by him. For the said purpose, the second respondent issued a third party cheque towards payment of insurance premium. The Development Officer of the appellant by inadvertence issued a cover note. However, when the said mistake came to his notice,

the respondent No.2 was contacted by the Development Officer. He was asked to pay the amount of premium. It was not tendered and instead the respondent No.2 is said to have returned the original cover note and took back the cheque. The original cover note as also all the duplicate copies thereof was cancelled. The said insurance cover was issued for the period

3.9.1991 to 2.9.1992. On or about 12.9.1991, the said vehicle met with an accident. First respondent who suffered an injury therein filed a claim petition in terms of the provisions contained in Sec. 166effect liability of insurer when vehicle met with accident within the period under cover note held, no premium

could be said to have been paid no privity of contract between insurer and insured Supreme Court in jurisdiction under Art. 142 of Constitution, directed insurer to recover the paid compensation

from insured owner appeal allowed.

2008(7) SCC 526

2.Insured tendered cheque to Insurer on 23/1/1995, towards premium Cover note was issued by the insurer On 27/1/1995 accident took place & third party, suffered severe injuries The

cheque given for insurance, dishonored After the date of accident Insurance Policy was cancelled However, on 30/1/1995, insured paid cash to insurer Insurer contended that a contract of insurance would be valid only when cheque paid for premium is honoured On the dishonor of the cheque the contract being without consideration, need not be performed Held, cover note

was issued and cover note would come within the purview of definition of "Certificate of Insurance" and also an "insurance policy" It remains valid till it is cancelled.

2008(3) GLH 791(SC) Abhaysing Pratapsing Waghela

3.Cover note proposal Form was submitted to IC on 30.12.2002 at 11.11 a.m. IC issued cover note mentioning that risk was undertaken from 31.12.2002 – whether IC is liable. Held ; no. when there is specific mention with respect to the effective date

of policy, it starts from 31.12.2002 accident occurred on 30.12.2002 at 8 p.m. held IC is not liable

2012 ACJ 1312009 (3) 155 PLR 65 (SC) Oriental Ins. Co. v/s Porselvi followed

4.Cover Note IC did not produce any ledger or other evidence to prove that on the date of accident premium was not paid Whether IC is liable. Held ; Yes. 2012 ACJ 1497 (MP), 2016 ACJ 851 (P&H)

5. Dispute with regard to Cover note – IC dispute it's liability on the ground that Cover note is forged held – in summary proceeding, Tribunal cannot decide said issue.

2013 ACJ 2245 (Pat), 2013 ACJ 2542 (P&H), 2016

ACJ 851 (P&H),

But also see 2017 ACJ 1149 (Del)

6.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

2011 ACJ 1728 (BOM)

6A.Commencement of the policy – IC produced computer generated IP depicting time and date thereon – whether can be relied upon? Held ; No.

As per the Section 65B of the Evidence Act, a document produced

by way of a electronic device is admissible in evidence only if it satisfies the prerequisites of Section 65B(4) of the evidence Act.2017 ACJ 1196 (Bom)

7.Cover Note – interpolation – accident occurred on 24.12.1999 at 7.15 pm – cover note has been interpolated as 21.40 pm – when time is mentioned in hours there was no necessity to write pm – IC manipulated the time of original cover note and, therefore, IC held liable.

2015 ACJ 2051.

8.Cover Note Photocopy of cover note produced by the claimant and Driver and owner have failed to produce the original of cover note – Tribunal exonerated IC on the ground that Cover note has not been proved by leading cogent evidence – Whether such order is sustainable? Held ; No.

2016 ACJ 2776 (UK)

9.Cover note – pay and recover order – IC alleged that cover note issued fraudulently by officer of the IC – who was subsequently removed – IC failed to adduced any evidence that Cover Note was ante dated – same was issued when officer was on working with IC – IC may not be stricto sensu liable but directed to pay and recover

2018 ACJ 1301 (SC) – Magla Ram vs. OI Com.

10.IC disputed its liability on the ground that cover note has been displaced ; no FIR in this connection has been produced Whether

IC can be exonerated? Held ; No.

2019 ACJ 2845(Hyd)

11.Cover note Motor Vehicle Third Party Insurance Rules, 1946 Rule 5 and 6 Cover note can be issued for the period of two months only and it can be issued for the period of one year and it should be duly authenticated with the seal of the IC 2022

ACJ 1808 (Kar)