2026:JHHC:11146 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Miscellaneous Appeal No. 320 of 2017 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chas Branch Office, at Patel Bhawan, Bye-pass Road, Chas, P.O. & P.S. P.S. Chas, Dist.-Bokaro represented through its Dhanbad Divisional Office, Ar Rajhuns Mansion, 2nd Floor, Bank More, P.S. Bankmore, P.O. & Dist.-Dhanbad … … … Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Sushari Devi, aged about 51 years, wife of Late Doman Mahto 2. Khedan Mahto, aged about 32 years, son of Late Doman Mahto. 3. Dhiran Mahto, aged about 27 years, son of late Doman Mahto. All resident of Village-Rajabandh, (Kalyanpur Mouza) P.O. Singhdih, P.S. Topchanchi (Hariharpur, Gomoh), Dist.-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) 4. Deleted 5. Md. Sabir, son of Md. Israfil, resident of Goibindpur, P.O. & P.S. Gobindpur, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) … … … Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Appellant: Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocate For Resp. Nos.1-3: Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For Resp. No.5: None. --------- 11 /Dated: 17.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent No. 5 has been duly served in this matter and an affidavit of service has also been filed. 3. With the consent and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, this appeal, which relates to the year 2017 is taken up for final disposal. 4. This appeal challenges the judgment and Award dated 30.01.2017 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Dhanbad (Tribunal) on the ground that the offending vehicle was not insured with the appellant Insurance Company when the accident took place on 24.11.1998 at 7:00 AM. 5. Mr. Prashant Kumar, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that though the cover note, xerox copy of which was 2026:JHHC:11146 -2- produced by the claimants indicate that the same was issued on 23.11.1998 at 5:30 PM, still, the very cover note, indicates that the effective date and time of the commencement of the insurance for the purposes of the Insurance Act was from 5:30 PM on 24.11.1998 to the midnight of 23.11.1999. He submitted that once there is such a specific endorsement on the insurance policy/cover note, then the general rule about the effective date of commencement of the insurance for the purposes of the Insurance Act, i.e., from midnight on the date of issue of the insurance policy, will not apply. 6. Mr Prashant Kumar submitted that the indicated timing and date as the effective date of commencement would apply in the present case. He submitted that, since the accident admittedly took place at 7:00 AM on 24.11.1998, i.e., before the effective date and time of commencement of the insurance policy, the appellant Insurance Company could not have been held liable for payment of the insurance amount. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Porselvi and another, (2009) 15 SCC 116, New India Insurance Co. Vs. Bhagwati Devi and others, (1998) 6 SCC 534 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Bimal Kumar Rana and others, Misc. Appeal no. 134 of 2005 decided on 19.02.2019 in support of his arguments. 8. Mr Birendra Kumar, the learned counsel for the claimants, submitted that the insurance policy was admittedly issued on 23.11.1998, i.e. much before the accident which took place at 7:00 AM on 24.11.1998. He submitted that the Insurance Company cannot issue a policy unilaterally from a future date without the consent of the policyholder. He submitted that, in this case, no evidence was led by the Insurance Company, and therefore there is nothing to indicate that the future date mentioned on the cover note was with the policy holder's consent. 2026:JHHC:11146 -3- 9. Mr Birendra Kumar submitted that there are no endorsements on the cover note, with the initials of the officers who made them. He submitted that in such circumstances, the plea of the Insurance Company ought not to be upheld. He relied on Balbir Kaur and others Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and others, (2009) 13 SCC 370, to support his contention. 10. The rival contentions now fall for determination. 11. The accident occurred on 24.11.1998 at 7:00 AM. 12. The Insurance Company had raised a defence in its written statement that there was no valid insurance cover at the time and on the date of the accident. However, after raising such a defence, the Insurance Company did not lead any oral or documentary evidence to make his defence. 13. The Insurance Company, however, relies upon a xerox copy of the cover note produced by the claimants in their evidence. 14. The cover note, which is at Exhibit 7 of the records, has been duly perused by me since the records and proceedings were already called in this matter. 15. The cover note records that the date of issue and time is 23.11.1998 at 5:30 PM. However, in the column concerned with effective date and time of commencement of the insurance for the purposes of the Act, there is an endorsement about the effective date and time being 5:30 PM on 24.11.1998 to midnight on 23.11.1999. The crucial words of “5:30 PM” and “24.11.1998” are written in ink. There is no endorsement of any official against these words written in ink. 16. Be that as it may, this is a case in which the Insurance Company has unilaterally issued the policy effective from a future date. No evidence was led by the Insurance Company to show that the issuance of the policy from a future date and time was with the owner of the insured 2026:JHHC:11146 -4- vehicle's consent. This was clearly a matter of fact that had to be proved by the Insurance Company by leading proper evidence. As noted earlier, the Insurance Company did not bother to lead any oral or documentary evidence in this matter. 17. The Tribunal has relied on the decision in Balbir Kaur (supra). Paragraph 11 of this decision is relevant and therefore, transcribed below for the convenience of reference: - “11. For the purpose of this case, we would assume that 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. Even the said circular letter had not been produced and/or no material was placed as to why the policy was issued from a later date. It is, however, not necessary for us to delve deep into the matter in view of the limited notice issued by this Court. Respondent 3, the owner of the vehicle, however, has not questioned that part of the order passed by the High Court. He, therefore, accepted the judgment of the High Court. Accordingly, liability to pay the awarded amount by him is not in question.” 18. The above decision holds that even if it is assumed that a policy could be issued from a future date, any such policy must be with the policyholder's consent. The Insurance Company cannot issue a policy unilaterally from a future date without the policyholder's consent. In this case, there was neither any pleading nor any evidence to indicate the policyholder’s consent to the issue of the policy from a future date. Therefore, if the Tribunal, by following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balbir Kaur (supra), has held the appellant Insurance Company liable, there is no case made out to interfere with these findings and conclusions. 2026:JHHC:11146 -5- 19. In the case of Porselvi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after referring to some of its earlier decisions, merely remanded the matter to the High Court since not all issues were properly considered by the High Court. Bhagwati Devi (supra) does hold that the principle that if there should be no contract to the contrary, an insurance policy becomes operative from the previous midnight, when bought during the day following, would not apply where a specific time for its purchase was mentioned in the policy. 20. In this case, though, a specific time and date were mentioned, but they were in the future. There is no evidence that the issue of policy from a future date was with the policyholder's consent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balbir Kaur (supra), has already held that the Insurance Company cannot issue a policy unilaterally from a future date without the consent of the holder of the policy. 21. Incidentally, Bhagwati Devi (supra) relies on National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jikubhai Nathuji Dabhi, (1997) 1 SCC 66, and that is the very decision which was also cited by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Kaur (supra). There is no conflict between Balbir Kaur (supra) and Bhagwati Devi (supra), but the decision in Balbir Kaur (supra) will apply in this case because there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the issue of the policy from the future date was with the consent of the policyholder. The facts in Bimal Kumar Rana (supra) also offer no parallel to the facts in the present case. There was proper evidence available on behalf of the Insurance Company. 22. For all the above reasons, this appeal fails and is dismissed without any order for costs. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of. 23. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the entire amount awarded was deposited with this Court. Learned counsel for the 2026:JHHC:11146 -6- claimants, however, submits that out of Rs. 11,00,000/-, only Rs. 7,00,000/- was deposited, which the claimants have already withdrawn. 24. If there is any deficit in the deposit, the appellant Insurance Company must deposit the balance amount together with interest within four weeks from today, after giving due intimation to the learned counsel for the claimants. If the amount has already been deposited, the claimants are entitled to withdraw it after furnishing their bank and identity details. Otherwise, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount once it is deposited, again, after furnishing bank and identity details. Registry to directly transfer the compensation amount into the bank account of the claimants, and under no circumstances should the amount be disbursed other than through the banking channels. 25. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant states that the entire amount is deposited before the executing court. If so, the executing court should transfer this amount to the claimants’ bank accounts once the claimants provide their bank and identity details. 26. Once the entire amount is transferred to the claimants and a proof in that regard is filed in this Court, the Registry must refund the statutory deposit amount to the appellant. 27. All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this order. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) April 17, 2026 N.A.F.R. APK/VK Uploaded on 20.04.2026