Partly allowed

The Asst.Branch Manager v. Kamalam

Kerala HC9 Jun 2010MACA/566/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Insurance Company appealed against the Tribunal's award of Rs. 1 lakh to the legal heirs of a deceased passenger. The Court construed the policy and limited the insurer's liability to Rs. 15,000, directing the claimants to recover the balance from the owner and driver.

What did the court decide?

The liability of the appellant insurance company is limited to Rs. 15,000 with interest. The claimants are directed to recover the balance compensation from the owner and driver of the offending vehic

The Asst.Branch Manager Vs Kamalam — Insurance | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶5

MACA.No. 566 of 2004()

¶6

---------------------OPMV.1780/1988 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM

¶7

APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT

¶8

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

¶9

THE ASSISTANT BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NEYYATTINKARA NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE, KOCHI-18.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2

¶12

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

¶13

1. KAMALAM D/O. BHAVANI, MAVUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, ERUTHAVOOR, MANJARAMOOLA, RASALPURAM P.O., MARANALLOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK.

¶14

2. VINITA KUMARI D/O. KAMALAM DO. DO.

¶15

3. VELUKUTTY, DO. DO.

¶16

4. MANOHARAM, S/O. VELUKUTTY, DO. DO.

¶17

5. ASOKAN S/O. VELUKUTTY, DO. DO.

¶18

6. A.RAMACHANDRAN, PUTHEN THERUV, BALARAMAPURAM P.O., ATHIYANNOOR DESOM, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE.

¶19

7. KRISHNAN MESTRI, THERUVIL, BALARAMAPURAM P.O.

¶20

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.

¶22

- - - - M.A.C.A.No.566 OF 2004

¶23

- - - - Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2010

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Barkath Ali, J.

¶26

This appeal is filed by the third respondent Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P.(MV)No.1780/1988.

¶27

The facts leading to this appeal in brief are these :

¶28

On August 2, 1988, one Sri.Vijayan, S/o. Velukutty died in a motor accident. His legal heirs who are the claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 92 A and 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1 lakh. The respondents in the O.P. are the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle. The insurer of the offending vehicle, who is the appellant herein, filed M.F.A.No.645/1993 before this court challenging the said award. This court by order dated September 18, 2000 set aside the award and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity to both parties to adduce

¶29

MACA.No.566/2004 2

¶30

evidence and to consider the limit of liability of the appellant.

¶31

After remand, Ext.A9 was marked on the side of the claimants and RW1 was examined and Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the third respondent/appellant. The Tribunal after appreciation of evidence found that the vehicle involved in the accident was covered by a valid insurance policy and that Ext.B1 also shows that the liability is unlimited and passed an award for Rs. 1 lakh with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation against the third respondent. The third respondent Insurance Company has now come up in appeal challenging the above finding of the Tribunal.

¶32

Heard the counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and the counsel for the respondents.

¶33

In this appeal the Insurance Company did not dispute the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Their only contention is that as per the policy , their liability is limited to Rs. 15,000/- per passenger, that as the claimant was a passenger in the offending vehicle, they are bound to pay only Rs. 15,000/- and the balance amount has to be recovered from the owner and driver.

¶34

MACA.No.566/2004

¶35

¶36

We have perused the copy of the policy produced before us. It is clearly stated therein that the liability is limited to Rs. 15,000/- per

¶37

passenger. This was a policy under the old Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, we hold that the liability of the appellant/third respondent is only Rs. 15,000/- and the balance amount has to be recovered from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

¶38

In the result, it is found that the liability of the appellant/third respondent Insurance Company is limited to Rs. 15,000/- with its interest. Claimants can claim the balance amount with interest from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle who are respondents 6 and 7 in this appeal. As they have expired, their legal representatives are impleaded as respondents 12 and 13. Claimants can recover the balance amount of compensation from them.

¶39

The Appeal is disposed of as found above.

¶40

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

¶41

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE

¶42

sv.

¶43

MACA.No.566/2004 4

¶44

MACA.No.566/2004 5

The Asst.Branch Manager v. Kamalam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Asst.Branch Manager v. Kamalam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasanth Kumar Vs T.P.Shoukath Ali

Ciji Vs K.M.Mathai

Ali Vs P.Mohammed

Baiju Thomas Alias Biju Vs the Manager

Mohanan Vs K.a.Pradeep

Bhageerathi Vs Vijayan