# United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Smt. Prabhawati Devi and others

- **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 321
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-03-07
- **Bench:** Rajes Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-v-smt-prabhawati-devi-and-others-42496
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri R.S.Misra
Sri Ramesh Chandra Tiwari
Sri S.Shukla

Motor
Vehicle
Act-1988Section
173-
Liability of Insurance Company-accident
took place on 12.30 pm on 6th March-83Vehicle insured at 4.30 pm on same dayheld-effective from date and time of
insured-admittedly vehicle not insured
on 12.30 pm-no liability of Insurance
company can be fastend-Appeal allowedhowever appellant to deposit entire
amount with liberty to recover from
owner of vehicle.

Held: Para-5
The Apex Court in the case of New India
Assurance Company Limited vs. Bhagwati
Devi (Supra), relying upon the earlier
decision of the Apex Court in the case of
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jikubkai
Nathuji Dabhi, has held that the principle
deduced is, thus, clear that should there be
no contract to the contrary, an insurance
policy
becomes
operative
from
the
previous midnight, when bought during
the day following. However, in case if
there is mention of a specific time for its
purchase then a special contract to the
contrary comes into being and the policy
would be effective from the mentioned
time. In the present case, admittedly, in
the Insurance Cover Note, time, that is,
4:00 PM dated 6th March, 1986 was
mentioned. Therefore, in view of the law
laid down by the Apex Court, referred
hereinabove, the Insurance Policy was in
operation from 4:00 PM on 6th March,
1986 and not from the midnight of the said
date. Since the accident occurred at 12:30
PM on 6th March, 1986, at the relevant
time, the vehicle was not insured with the
appellant and, thus, the appellant cannot
be held liable to indemnify the liability of
the owner of the vehicle.

Case Law discussed:
1998 Law Suit (SC) 178

## Text

1 All] United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Prabhawati Devi and others
321
the Case of U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Samiti
, U.P. ( Supra).

39. Last arguments which advanced
by learned counsel for the petitioner that
after expiry of a period of 23 years from
the date of grant of patta in favour of the
petitioner , the same cannot be canceled
by way of order dated 29.6.1991 passed
by opposite party no.1 in view of the
provisions as provided under Section
198(6) of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act or
Article 137 of the Limitation Act, has got
no force because admittedly in the present
case there is no limitation in respect to
cancellation of patta as provided under
Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act and
once it is established that initial grant of
patta/ lease of the petitioner by opposite
party no.5 is passed is void ab initio then
it can be cancelled by invoking the
provisions as provided under the Act , so
the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner has also got no
force and is rejected.

40. For the foregoing reasons, the
writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed
accordingly.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.03.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR,J.

First Appeal from Order No. 737 of 1987.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd....Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Prabhawati Devi and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.B. Saran
Sri Mohan Srivastava
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.S.Misra
Sri Ramesh Chandra Tiwari
Sri S.Shukla

Motor
Vehicle
Act-1988Section
173-
Liability of Insurance Company-accident
took place on 12.30 pm on 6th March-83Vehicle insured at 4.30 pm on same dayheld-effective from date and time of
insured-admittedly vehicle not insured
on 12.30 pm-no liability of Insurance
company can be fastend-Appeal allowedhowever appellant to deposit entire
amount with liberty to recover from
owner of vehicle.

Held: Para-5
The Apex Court in the case of New India
Assurance Company Limited vs. Bhagwati
Devi (Supra), relying upon the earlier
decision of the Apex Court in the case of
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jikubkai
Nathuji Dabhi, has held that the principle
deduced is, thus, clear that should there be
no contract to the contrary, an insurance
policy
becomes
operative
from
the
previous midnight, when bought during
the day following. However, in case if
there is mention of a specific time for its
purchase then a special contract to the
contrary comes into being and the policy
would be effective from the mentioned
time. In the present case, admittedly, in
the Insurance Cover Note, time, that is,
4:00 PM dated 6th March, 1986 was
mentioned. Therefore, in view of the law
laid down by the Apex Court, referred
hereinabove, the Insurance Policy was in
operation from 4:00 PM on 6th March,
1986 and not from the midnight of the said
date. Since the accident occurred at 12:30
PM on 6th March, 1986, at the relevant
time, the vehicle was not insured with the
appellant and, thus, the appellant cannot
be held liable to indemnify the liability of
the owner of the vehicle.

Case Law discussed:
1998 Law Suit (SC) 178

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.)
322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

1. Heard Sri Mohan Srivastava,
learned counsel for the appellant as well
as Sarvasri Ramesh Chandra Tiwari and
S. Shukla, appearing on behalf of the
respondent nos. 1 and 3. Respondent no.2
is represented by Sri R.S. Misra.

2. The appellant is the insurer of
Jeep No. UPQ-1791, which was involved
in an accident occurred on 6.3.1986 at
12:30 PM in which Jitendra, aged about
seven years, died. The Tribunal awarded
the compensation at Rs.27,000/= and the
owner of the vehicle as well as Insurance
Company have been held liable. It has
further been held by the Tribunal that
since the vehicle was insured, the
Insurance Company is liable to indemnify
the liability of the owner of the vehicle
and is liable to pay the compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that as per the Insurance Cover
Note, the vehicle was insured at 4:00 PM
on 6th March, 1986, while the accident
occurred at 12:30 PM on 6th March,
1986, when the vehicle was not insured.
He submitted that since in the insurance
policy, specific time, that is, 4:00 PM was
mentioned, therefore, the policy came in
operation after 4:00 PM on 6th March,
1986 and not from the midnight of 6th
March, 1986. Since the vehicle was not
insured at the time of accident, therefore,
the Insurance Company cannot be held
liable to pay the compensation. In support
of the contention, he relied upon the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of
New
India
Assurance
Company
Limited vs. Bhagwati Devi, reported in
1998 Law Suit (SC)178.

4. find substance in the argument of
learned counsel for the appellant

5. The Apex Court in the case of
New
India
Assurance
Company
Limited vs. Bhagwati Devi (Supra),
relying upon the earlier decision of the
Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jikubkai Nathuji
Dabhi, has held that the principle
deduced is, thus, clear that should there be
no contract to the contrary, an insurance
policy becomes operative from the
previous midnight, when bought during
the day following. However, in case if
there is mention of a specific time for its
purchase then a special contract to the
contrary comes into being and the policy
would be effective from the mentioned
time. In the present case, admittedly, in
the Insurance Cover Note, time, that is,
4:00 PM dated 6th March, 1986 was
mentioned. Therefore, in view of the law
laid down by the Apex Court, referred
hereinabove, the Insurance Policy was in
operation from 4:00 PM on 6th March,
1986 and not from the midnight of the
said date. Since the accident occurred at
12:30 PM on 6th March, 1986, at the
relevant time, the vehicle was not insured
with the appellant and, thus, the appellant
cannot be held liable to indemnify the
liability of the owner of the vehicle.

6. In the result, the Appeal is
allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated
25th July, 1987 is modified to the extent
that the Insurance Company is not liable
to indemnify the liability of the owner of
the vehicle. However, the Insurance
Company shall pay the amount of
compensation, but has the right to recover
the same from the owner of the vehicle.
The appellant is directed to deposit the
entire
outstanding
amount
in
the
concerned Tribunal within two months
and the Tribunal is directed to release the
1 All] Ranjit Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.
323
same to the claimant within a month
thereafter.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.03.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE ZAKI ULLAH KHAN, J.

Service Bench No. 1022 of 2011

Ranjit Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P.

...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri H.G.S.Parihar

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C
Sri W.U.Ahmad

Constitution
of
India
Art.226-
Disengagement contractual appointment
as teacher for MBA course-continued for
last
Seven
years-no
allegation
of
misconduct or inefficiency-no Service
Rules or Regulation governing service
condition-existing
university
being
within meaning of instrumenty of state-
can not be allow to adopt hiring and
firing policy-petitioner entitled to work
till continuation of course or schemehonorarium
be
paid
subject
to
satisfactory discharge of duty.

Held: Para-10

In academic matters where teachers are
engaged by the University may be on
contractual basis under the scheme or
course which is likely to continue for
years
to
come,
ordinarily
such
engagement should not be terminated in
case the conduct and work of the person
engaged is satisfactory. It is not a case
where
work
and
conduct
of
the
petitioners are not satisfactory rather it
appears that petitioners have discharged
their
obligation
with
bright
service
record.

Case Law discussed:
(1985)4 SCC 43; Civil Appeal Nos. 419-426 of
2004; AIR 1978 SC 597; AIR 1971 SC 530; AIR
1985 SC 218; AIR 1980 SC 1707; (1992) 4
SCC 363; (1993) 2 SCC 386; (2004) 2 SCC
362; AIR 2005 SC 3315; AIR 2005 SC 2499;
(2005) 7 SCC 234.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh, J)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner Shri H.G.S.Parihar, learned
counsel
for
the
respondent
Shri
W.U.Ahmad as well as learned Standing
counsel. Perused the records.

2. Instant petition has been preferred
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India by the petitioner on account of
hiring and firing policy adopted by the
respondent University to engage teachers
for MBA course under self-financing
scheme under the grant of contractual
assignment. Admittedly, the petitioners
were appointed in the year 2003 and 2006
on contractual basis for the period of
eleven month to impart education to the
students of the respondent University
(Institute of Business Studies) on fixed
salary. They have been continuing in
service from the very inception of
Establishment though it was for eleven
month. However, respondent took a
decision to dispense with the services of
petitioners and make a fresh recruitment
for
the
respective
courses.
Feeling
aggrieved with the decision taken by the
respondent University, the petitioners had
approached this court.

3. Shri W.U.Ahmad learned counsel
for the respondent, while defending the