Partly allowed

T.Hassankutty v. P.Kunhimohammed

Kerala HC3 Feb 2009MACA/1467/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Tribunal's award exonerating the insurer as a gratuitous passenger in a private jeep case. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration to examine the comprehensive B policy conditions and premium details regarding passenger coverage. The court directed the Tribunal to afford parties an opportunity to produce evidence.

What did the court decide?

The award exempting the insurance company was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for fresh consideration. Directions were given for parties to produce evidence a

T.Hassankutty Vs P.Kunhimohammed — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930

¶5

MACA.No. 1467 of 2008(B)

¶6

-----------------------------OPMV.2506/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE

¶7

APPELLANT(S)PETITIONER:

¶8

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

¶9

T.HASSANKUTTY, S/O.KUNHALAN HAJI NELLIKUNNUMMEL HOUSE KUZHINHOOLAM PO., KEEZHISSERY MALAPPURAM

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENTS :

¶12

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

¶13

1. P.KUNHIMOHAMMED, S/O.SAIDALAVI HAJI, MAYAPPATHODI HOUSE CHERUKAVU AMSOM PARAVOOR DESOM, PULIKKAL PO., MALAPPURAM. DRIVER AND OWNER OF JEEP KL/10-H-4649.

¶14

2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE-11, BANK ROAD, MAVOOR ROAD JN., KOZHIKODE. (INSURER OF JEEP KL/10-H-4649.

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

M.N. KRISHNAN, J.

¶17

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1467 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3^rd day of February, 2009

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P.(MV)2506/01.

¶20

The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a total compensation of Rs.41,460/- and it exonerated the insurance company from the liability. It is challenging the exoneration of liability the appeal is preferred.

¶21

The Tribunal has dealt with the whole matter in one sentence that the vehicle is a private jeep and the petitioner is a gratuitous passenger and therefore the insurance company is liable to be exonerated. If it is only an Act only policy it may prove correct but not in all cases. At

¶22

the out set it has to be stated it is comprehensive policy which is a B policy. I also found from the schedule to the policy that Rs.300/- is collected as premium for six persons. It is not known whether it is an extension of personal

¶23

M.A.C.A. 1467 OF 2008 -:2:-

¶24

accident benefit or not. It is a matter that has to be read along with the conditions of the policy or whether it covers the passengers in a private vehicle outright. Neither the Tribunal has applied its mind nor the insurance company has produced any materials to prove it otherwise. Therefore the matter requires interference at the hands of this Court and it has to be probed further by the Tribunal. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside so far as it relates to the exoneration of the liability of the insurance company is concerned and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on the basis of the discussion in the above paragraphs. Parties are permitted to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The claimant is directed to take out notice to the owner and the insurance

¶25

M.A.C.A. 1467 OF 2008

¶26

-:3:-

¶27

company again after he enters appearance before the Tribunal. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 23.3.09.

¶28

The MACA is disposed of accordingly.

¶29

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶30

ul/-

T.Hassankutty v. P.Kunhimohammed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Hassankutty v. P.Kunhimohammed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Sajeev Vs P.Aboobacker

Thankamani Vs Mathai Kuruvila

National Insurance Co.Ltd Vs K.Krishnan

B.Kammadathu Vs a.Gopalakrishna

Prajith,Son of Late Anandhan Vs K.a.Sunil,Raguvaran,New India Assurance

United India Insurance Co.Ltd Vs K.M.Ashok Kumar