Partly allowed

Annamma Eapen v. Thankappan

Kerala HC18 Jan 2008MACA/2/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the车祸claims appeal in part, modifying an award where the Tribunal exonerated the insurer. It held that the insurer must pay the compensation to the third-party pedestrian and subsequently recover the amount from the owner despite the driver's lack of a valid license.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent (insurer) directed to pay compensation and recover it from the third respondent owner via execution of judgment.

Annamma Eapen Vs Thankappan — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929

¶5

MACA.No. 2 of 2004() -----------------------------OPMV.1435/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM

¶6

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶7

----------------------------------

¶8

ANNAMMA EAPEN, AGED 68 YEARS, W/O.EAPEN, KALLADYAL VEEDU, CHENNAMATTAM BHAGOM, KOOROPPPADA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.GIRIJA.L.

¶10

RESPONDENTS: RESPDONDENTS:

¶11

---------------------------------------------

¶12

1. THANKAPPAN, S/O.KEASVAN, THARA BHAVAN, CHETTIKULANGARA, MAVELIKKARA.

¶13

2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER, KOTTAYAM.

¶14

3. JAMES MATHEW, S/O.C.M.MATHEW, KODAYATH HOUSE, PLANKAMOODU, P.O.AYOOR.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J.

¶18

M.A.C.A.No.2 of 2004

¶19

Dated, this the 18^th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT

¶20

The claimant in O.P.(MV) No.1435/1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam is the appellant. The appellant is challenging that part of the award by which the Tribunal exonerated the insurer. The appellant filed a petition claiming compensation alleging that she sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 5.4.1995. According to the appellant while she was standing on the side of the road a scooter bearing registration No.KL B/364 which was ridden by the first respondent came in a rash or negligent manner and hit against her body and she sustained injuries. Subsequently the third respondent was impleaded as the actual owner. Appellant claimed a compensation of Rs.60,000/-. Respondents 1 and 3 did not appear and contest. Insurer alone contested. It was contended that the vehicle was covered with a valid policy of insurance, but the rider of the scooter had no valid licence at the time of accident. Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the scooter. It also found that the appellant was entitled to get an amount of Rs.11,500/- as compensation. Tribunal also found that the rider of the scooter had no driving licence. Though there was a valid policy of insurance the Tribunal exonerated the insurer and directed third respondent to pay the compensation. Dissatisfied with the award the claimant herself has filed this appeal.

¶21

MACA No.2/2004 2

¶22

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since the vehicle was covered with valid policy of insurance at the time of accident the Tribunal ought to have directed the insurer to deposit the compensation awarded and then recover the same from the owner. It is argued that the appellant was a third party and since she is a third party, the Tribunal ought to have directed the insurer to pay the compensation amount and then recover the same from the insured as the contention was that there was breach of conditions of policy. Learned counsel for the insurer has argued that the claimant cannot insist who should pay the compensation. It is argued that the owner who was directed to pay compensation has not filed any appeal and as such this Court cannot direct the insurer to indemnify the insured in this case. It is also argued that the Tribunal after considering all aspects exonerated the insurer and the same may not be interfered with.

¶23

The legal position is very clear. Appellant was a pedestrian and she was a third party. The Tribunal found that there was violation of policy condition. It is settled through judicial precedents that in such cases the insurer will have to pay the compensation amount to the third party and then recover the same from the owner. So the award passed by the Tribunal by the Tribunal is to be modified to that extent.

¶24

In the result, appeal is allowed in part. Award passed by the Tribunal is modified. Second respondent insurer is directed to pay the compensation amount

¶25

MACA No.2/2004 3

¶26

and then recover the same from the third respondent owner by executing this

¶27

judgment itself.

¶28

K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE.

¶29

cks

Annamma Eapen v. Thankappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annamma Eapen v. Thankappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharathi Vs Lakshmikutty Karunakaran

Reg.Director,Esi Corpn. Vs P.K.Vidyadharan

M. Sathyan Vs P.V. Vimal Kumar

O.S.Prakash Vs P.v.Mohanan

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs v.Suresh Lal

Ynited India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kurunakaran Nair