Partly allowed

Gopinathan Achari v. George

Kerala HC16 Jan 2008MFA/22/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's finding that the appellant and owner were liable for compensation due to an alleged lack of valid insurance. The High Court held a valid policy existed, set aside the personal liability of the appellant and owner, and directed the insurer to deposit the entire awarded amount.

What did the court decide?

Finding that appellant and 5th respondent are liable is set aside. 6th respondent directed to deposit entire compensation; appellant allowed to recover any portion already paid.

Gopinathan Achari Vs George — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929

¶5

MFA.No. 22 of 2002(A)

¶6

-------------------------------OPMV.524/1991 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

APPELLANT: 1ST RESPONDENT:

¶8

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

¶9

GOPIINATHAN ACHARI, S/O. PONNAPPAN ACHARI, VALLIYATHU, NADUKKETHIL VEEDU, UMAYATHUKARA MURI, THIRUVAN MANTHOOR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF

¶11

RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 2,3, & 4:

¶12

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

¶13

1. GEORGE, S/O. MATHEN KOSHY, THOPIL HOUSE, PEECHII P.O., VELLANGANNOR, TRICHUR DISTRICT.

¶14

2. MATHAI KUTTY, S/O. MATHEN KOSHY, THOPPIL HOUSE, PEECHI P.O., VELLANGANNOR, TRIICHUR DISTRICT.

¶15

3. THOMAS KOSHY, S/O. MATHAN KOSHY, THOPPIL HOUSE, PEECHI P.O., VELLANGANNOR, THICHUR DISTRICT.

¶16

4. THE ORIENTAL IINSURANCE COMPANY, THIRUVALLA.

¶17

5. SAJEEV SEBASTIAN, ERAPPAKKATTU VEEDU, CHENGALAM P.O.

¶18

6. THE UNITED INDIA IINSURANCE COMPANY LTD. PONKUNNAM BRANCH, PONKUNNAM.

¶19

ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS IMPLEADED

¶20

7. SHYNI, D/O. GEORGE THOPPIL HOUSE, PEECHI P.O., VELLANGANNOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶21

8. SHERLY, D/O. GEORGE, THOPPIL HOUSE, PEECHI P.O., VELLANGANNOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶22

ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 7 AND 8 ARE IMPLEADED AS LRS OF DECEASED FIRST RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 1.1.2008 ON I.A. NO.1070 OF 2007.

¶23

BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR SRI.MATHEWS JACOB SMT.K.C.BEENA

¶24

THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.

¶26

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶27

M.F.A. NO.22 OF 2002

¶28

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16^th day of January, 2008

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

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

¶31

Admitted. Advocate Shri P.Gopalakrishnan Nair takes notice for R3. Advocate Shri Mathews Jacob takes notice for R4. Advocate Shri Liji J.Vadakedom takes notice for R5. Advocate Smt. K.C.Beena takes notice for R6. Notice to other respondents dispensed with. Appeal itself is heard and disposed of.

¶32

2. Late Mathen Koshy sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident. He filed O.P(MV) No.524 of 1991 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta initially impleading the appellant and the Insurer claiming compensation. It was alleged that the appellant was the driver and owner of the vehicle. Appellant appeared and contended that the real owner of the vehicle was one Sajeev Sebastian and the vehicle was covered with a valid policy of insurance issued by the United India Insurance Company. Hence Sajeev Sebastian and United India Insurance Company

¶33

M.F.A. NO.22 OF 2002

¶34

-: 2 :-

¶35

were impleaded as additional respondents 3 and 4 in the O.P. During the pendency of the O.P. original petitioner died and his children were impleaded as additional petitioners. Pending this appeal, first respondent, who was the additional second petitioner in the O.P., also died and his legal representatives were also impleaded. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the appellant. It was further found that the original petitioner was entitled to get Rs.15,100/- as compensation. It also found that the vehicle was not covered with a valid policy of insurance and hence it directed the appellant and 5^th respondent to pay the compensation awarded. Challenging that award, this appeal is filed.

¶36

3. The findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the appellant and the deceased original petitioner was entitled to get compensation are correct and confirmed. The only question surviving for consideration is whether the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant as well as the 5^th respondent shall pay the compensation as the vehicle was not covered with a valid

¶37

M.F.A. NO.22 OF 2002

¶38

-: 3 :-

¶39

policy of insurance is liable to be interfered with.

¶40

4. According to the appellant he gave details of the policy and based on his contention respondents 5 and 6 were impleaded by the Tribunal itself and in spite of the fact that that details were available, the Tribunal took a view that the Insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured. It is submitted that immediately after passing of the award, appellant filed a review petition to review the award and that petition was subsequently dismissed. Appellant also produced a copy of the insurance policy issued by the 6^th respondent to the 5^th respondent, who is the registered owner. Appellant submitted that the vehicle was covered with valid policy of insurance as on 8.2.1991, the date on which the accident had occurred. It is also submitted that the insurance policy was issued for the period from 20.2.1990 to 19.2.1991.

¶41

5. In view of the fact that there was a valid policy of insurance issued by the 6^th respondent I am of the view that the 6^th respondent is having a statutory liability to indemnify the insured.

¶42

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The finding

¶43

M.F.A. NO.22 OF 2002

¶44

-: 4 :-

¶45

of the Tribunal that respondents 2, 3, 7 and 8 are entitled to the compensation awarded to their predecessor is confirmed. The quantum of compensation awarded is also confirmed. But the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant and 5^th respondent alone are liable to pay the compensation awarded is set aside. The 6^th respondent is directed to deposit the entire amount. If the appellant had already deposited any portion of the compensation awarded, he can recover the same from the 6^th respondent by executing this judgment itself. If the original petitioner had not withdrawn the amount, if any, deposited by the appellant, the 6^th respondent shall deposit the entire amount within two months from today. On deposit, respondents 2, 3, 7 and 8 can withdraw the amount after deducting the amount, if any, withdrawn by the original Petitioner.

¶46

K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE.

¶47

vsv

¶48

K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.

¶49

===================== M.F.A. NO.22 OF 2002

¶50

===================== J U D G M E N T

¶51

16TH JANUARY, 2008

Gopinathan Achari v. George

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopinathan Achari v. George

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

V.R.Krishnan Vs Keyan Krishnan

M.K.Omanakuttan Nair Vs Tomy Varghese

Kesavan Vs Narayana Menon

Recovery Officer Vs Modi Rubber Ltd.

Abdul Kareem Vs State of Kerala and Others

K.G.Philopose Vs State of Kerala