NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7170-74 OF 2005

S.M. SHARMILA .....APPELLANT.

         VERSUS

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. & ORS. .....RESPONDENTS.

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. As issues involved in all these appeals are common, all the appeals are  

heard together and disposed of by this common judgment as per request of  

the learned counsel.

2. The appellant in all these appeals is an owner of a vehicle and her  

workmen had been injured in an accident while they were travelling in a  

1

vehicle owned by the appellant.  As the concerned respondent workmen had  

suffered  injuries  in  an accident  arising  out  of  and in  the  course  of  their  

employment on 3rd April, 1998, they had filed cases claiming compensation  

before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Madurai.

3. After hearing the concerned parties and upon perusal of the record, the  

Commissioner  for  Workmen’s  Compensation,  Madurai  awarded  

compensation to the concerned workmen holding that the vehicle involved  

in  the  accident,  which  was  owned  by  the  appellant,  was  insured  with  

respondent-National Insurance Company Ltd. at the time when the accident  

had taken place and, therefore, the Insurance Company was saddled with the  

liability to make payment of compensation to the respondent workmen.  

4. Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Commissioner  

of  Workmen’s  Compensation  to  the  respondent  workmen,  the  Insurance  

Company had filed CMA Nos. 559-563 of 2003 and CMP Nos.4586-4590 of  

2003 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras.  

5. After  hearing  the  concerned  parties,  the  High  Court  reversed  the  

findings of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and came to a  

2

conclusion that the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured with  

National Insurance Company Ltd. on the date of the accident and, therefore,  

the Insurance Company was absolved from its liability to make payment of  

compensation to the respondent workmen and the present appellant, owner  

of the vehicle, was saddled with the liability of paying compensation to the  

respondent workmen.

6. The issue which has arisen in all these appeals is whether on the date  

of the accident, the vehicle in question was insured with National Insurance  

Company Ltd.  

7. It is an admitted fact that the accident had taken place on 3rd April,  

1998.

8. Case of the appellant-owner before the Commissioner for Workmen’s  

Compensation was that the vehicle in question had been insured with the  

respondent, Insurance Company for a period commencing from 14th May,  

1997  to  13th May,  1998  and  believing  the  aforestated  submission  to  be  

correct, the Commissioner had directed that compensation be paid by the  

Insurance Company.

3

9. The aforestated finding arrived at by the Commissioner had not been  

accepted by the High Court as the High Court came to the conclusion that  

the  vehicle  in  question  was  insured  for  a  period  commencing  from  3rd  

March, 1997 to 2nd March, 1998 and, therefore, the vehicle was not insured  

on the date when the accident had taken place.

10. The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant-owner  of  vehicle  

submitted  that  the  aforesaid  finding arrived at  by  the  High Court  is  not  

correct for the reason that the vehicle was insured for a year commencing  

from 14th May, 1997 to 13th May, 1998.  He referred to the evidence which  

had been adduced before the Commissioner.  He drew our attention to the  

cover  note  given  to  the  appellant  by  the  Development  Officer  of  the  

respondent  Insurance  Company  (Exhibit  R1)  showing that  the vehicle  in  

question was insured from 14th May, 1997 to 13th May, 1998.  He submitted  

that as the aforestated evidence was accepted by the Commissioner, there  

was no reason for  the High Court  to interfere  with the said finding and,  

therefore, the appeals filed by the appellant deserved to be accepted.

4

11. On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Gupta,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

respondent-Insurance Company vehemently submitted that for the reasons  

recorded  in  the  judgment,  the  High  Court  had  rightly  accepted  that  the  

vehicle in question was insured for a year commencing from 3rd March, 1997  

to 2nd March, 1998.  He drew our attention to the fact that the amount of  

premium was paid in cash on 3rd March, 1997 and the said fact was duly  

recorded in the premium register, a copy of which had been exhibited as  

Exhibit  R2-7.   He  further  submitted  that  as  per  postage  book  of  the  

Insurance  Company,  the  insurance  policy  had  been  dispatched  on  25th  

March, 1997.  He submitted that in normal circumstances, upon receipt of  

cash by way of premium, cover note is sent to the concerned person and  

after about a fortnight, insurance policy is sent to the concerned person.  He  

further drew our attention to a copy of cover note which had been issued by  

the Insurance Company stating the fact that premium was paid in cash on 3 rd  

March, 1997.

12. Upon hearing the concerned counsel and upon perusal of the relevant  

evidence contained in the paper book, we are of the view that the findings  

arrived at by the High Court need not be disturbed.

5

13. Whether the vehicle in question was insured at the time of accident  

i.e. on 3rd April, 1998 is a question of fact.  After appreciating the evidence,  

the High Court came to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was not  

insured on 3rd April, 1998 and the vehicle in question had been insured for a  

period commencing from 3rd March, 1997 to 2nd March, 1998.  The High  

Court has recorded sound reasons for coming to the said conclusion after  

carefully  appreciating  the  evidence  adduced  before  the  Commissioner.  

Postage book of the Insurance Company shows that the insurance policy was  

dispatched on 25th March, 1997.  This clearly denotes that the policy was  

taken  prior  to  25th March,  1997  and,  therefore,  the  High  Court  rightly  

believed the version of  the  Insurance  Company.   This  fact  rules  out  the  

possibility of the vehicle being insured on 3rd April, 1998 as submitted on  

behalf of the respondent workmen and the appellant.  Moreover, the cover  

note relied upon by the respondent workmen was not found to be genuine by  

the High Court.  We are, therefore, in agreement with the view expressed by  

the High Court.  

14. Looking to  the facts  of  the case,  in  our  opinion,  no  legal  issue  is  

involved in these appeals and there is no reason to interfere with the findings  

arrived at by the High Court, which appear to be just and proper.  

6

15. For the aforestated reasons, we dismiss the appeals with no order as to  

costs.  Ad-interim relief granted in favour of the appellant stands vacated in  

all appeals.

………..……………......................J.                                                   (AFTAB ALAM)

………...........................................J.                                                                (ANIL R. DAVE) New Delhi January 31 2012.  

7