Policy issued for the period from 02.08.2014 to 01.08.2015; – However on receipt issued on 01.08.2014 wherein premium had been received and no such timings were mentioned - Insurance company liable

(2020) SCeJ THE PUNJAB LAW REPORTER 1366

2020 SCeJ 1366 (Kar.) 

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Before: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice 

H.T. Narendra Prasad, J. 

The Claim Manager, CHOLAMANDALAM MS 

GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 

Bangalore - Appellant 

Versus 

Smt. EDNA LEMUEL MABEN – Respondent. 

MFA No. 6342 of 2016. 

2.4.2019. 

(i) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 

1988) - Insurance company cannot post-

pone the assumption of risk after receipt 

of premium otherwise it would be guilty 

of abetting use of vehicle in a public place 

without a policy which is prohibited by 

section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 

1988 - Proposal Form stated that the pol-

icy commenced from 02.08.2014 10.00 

A.M. to midnight on 01.08.2015 - Policy 

issued for the period from 02.08.2014 to 

01.08.2015; that the risk commenced 

from mid-night of 02.08.2014 to mid-

night of 01.08.2015 – However on receipt 

issued on 01.08.2014 wherein premium 

had been received and no such timings 

were mentioned - Insurance company 

liable. #2020 SCeJ 1366 (Kar.)

(ii) Insurance - Contra Proferentem 

Rule has an ancient genesis - When 

words are to be construed, resulting in 

two alternative interpretations then, the 

interpretation which is against the person 

using or drafting the words or expressions 

which have given rise to the difficulty in 

construction against the party, who has 

drafted them, applies - This Rule is often 

invoked while interpreting standard form 

contracts - Such contracts heavily com-

prise of forms with printed terms which 

are invariably used for the same kind of 

contracts, also such contracts are harshly 

worded against individuals and not read 

and understood most often, resulting in 

grave legal implications - When such 

standard form contracts ordinarily con-

tain exception clauses, they are invariably 

construed contra proferentem against a 

person who has drafted the same. #2020 

SCeJ 1366 (Kar.)[Para 19] 

Cases Referred : 

1. Central Bank of India v. Hartford 

Fire Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1965 SC 

1288 

2. Delhi Development Authority v. 

Durga Chand Kaushish AIR 1973 SC 

2609 

3. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insur-

ance Co. Ltd., v. Honnappa M.F.A. 

No.4070 of 2011 c/w. M.F.A. 

No.6866 of 2011 Decided on 

04.10.2016 

4. General Assurance Society Ltd., v. 

Chandmull Jain AIR (1966) SC 1644 

5. Industrial Promotion & Investment 

Corporation Of Orissa Ltd., v. New 

India Assurance Company Ltd., 

(2016) 15 SCC 315 

6. Magma General Insurance Compa-

ny Limited v. Nanu Ram 2018 AC 

2782 

7. Md. Kamgarh Shah v. Jagdish 

Chandra AIR 1960 SC 953 

8. National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Bha-

dramma 2010ACJ 1687 

9. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. 

Ram Dayal (1990) 2 SCC 680 

10. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Dha-

ram Chand 2010 ACJ 2659 

11. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Por-

selvi 2009(6) SCR 289 

12. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. 

B.S. Prasad 2011 (2) AIR Kar R 688 

13. Zameer Ahamed v. B.R. Narayana 

Shetty 2012 ACJ 1322 

JUDGMENT

Link

https://drive.google.com/file/d/18tS4OdHZ3j0uy-8I21_rGtYmR65g787S/view?usp=drivesdk