Dismissed

S.Yesnesan v. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Kerala HC29 Sept 2011WP(C)/23123/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, owner of a stolen and recovered truck, challenged failure of Oriental Insurance Company to implement a settlement agreement granting part replacement and payout. The court directed the insurer to release the agreed amount within three weeks and direct the workshop to effect repairs.

What did the court decide?

Directed the First Respondent to ensure the amounts due under the Ext.P2 agreement are released to the fourth respondent within three weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

S.Yesnesan Vs the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. — Insurance | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 7TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 23123 of 2011(M) -------------------------PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶5

S.YESUNESAN, R/A.RAJ NIVAS, THUNDATHIL P.O.,KARRIYAVATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695581

¶6

BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶7

1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP.BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,PAZHAVANGADY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001

¶8

2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, PAZHAVANGADY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001

¶9

3. THE SURVEYOR, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, PAZHAVANGADY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001

¶10

4. POPULAR MEGA MOTORS(INDIA) LTD REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PALLICHAL, VEDIVACHAM KOVIL P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695501

¶11

5. NAVEEN PHILIP, MANAGING DIRECTOR, POPULAR MEGA MOTORS, (INDIA)LTD PALLICHAL, VEDIVECHAM KOVIL P.O., THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695501

¶12

6. S.PADMAKUMAR, MANAGER, POPULAR MEGA MOTORS (INDIA)LTD, SERVICE, PALLICHAL, VEDIVACHAM KOVIL P.O., THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695501

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SU

¶14

WPC.NO.23123/2011

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶17

P1: COPY OF THE INSURANCE CERTIFICATE CUM POLICY

¶18

P2: THE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING HELD AT DIVISIONAL OFFICE PERMISES OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT COMPANY ON-27-4-2011.

¶19

P3: THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶25

¶26

W.P.(C) No. 23123 of 2011 M

¶27

¶28

Dated this the 29^th day of September, 2011

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶31

Petitioner is the registered owner of a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-22-9632. The vehicle was stolen on 28.11.2010 and was recovered only on 13.02.2011. Many of the parts of the vehicle were lost and, therefore, the vehicle was removed to the fourth respondent workshop and the claim for insurance was also lodged. An estimate was prepared and the third respondent also inspected the vehicle. Finally, in a meeting of the parties held on 27.04.2011, parties have come to an agreement, which is reflected in Ext.P2, relevant portion of which reads as under:-

¶32

“THE FOLLOWING DECISION HAS BEEN

¶33

TAKEN.

¶34

SANCTION FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE FOLLOWING PARTS AT THE EXPENSE OF ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY IS GRANTED. 01. CABIN ASSEMBLY WILL BE REPLACED.

¶35

W.P.(C) No.23123/2011

¶36

: 2 :

¶37

02. TAIL DOOR ASSEMBLY WILL BE REPLACED. 03. WHEEL DISK 11 NOS WILL BE REPLACED.

¶38

For replacing the above items, Labour Charge will be negotiated between the Repairer and Surveyor and the same will be paid by the Insurance Company. Salvage value of the above parts replaced will be deducted from the Net Claim Amount payable.

¶39

Normal Depreciation and Excess as per policy condition will be deducted.

¶40

After Completion of the Work, re-inspection of the work will be conducted by the Surveyor.”

¶41

Complaint of the petitioner is that, though the

¶42

parties have come to the aforesaid agreement, the insurance company has not given effect to the agreement and as a result, the vehicle still remains unattended in the premises of the fourth respondent. It is in the said circumstances this writ petition has been filed, mainly praying for a direction to the first respondent to give effect to Ext.P2 agreement and release the amount as agreed by them.

¶43

W.P.(C) No.23123/2011

¶44

: 3 :

¶45

In this writ petition, though notice was served on respondents 1 to 3, they have not entered appearance before this Court and, therefore, this Court did not have the benefit of hearing their version in the matter.

¶46

In the light of the agreement as reflected in Ext.P2, necessarily, respondents 1 to 3 should give effect to the terms thereof.

¶47

Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition, directing that the first respondent will ensure that the amounts due under Ext.P2 agreement is released to the fourth respondent, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within three weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶48

Petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this judgment before the first respondent, who shall carry out the above directions.

¶49

Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

¶50

aks/29/09

¶51

// True Copy //

¶52

P.A. To Judge

S.Yesnesan v. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Yesnesan v. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

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

M.Davood Vs the Union of India

Anesh George Vs the Chief Manager

Siby Thomas Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Sister Rosa Vs District Collector

Sasi Adhichan Vs the Tahsildar, Udumbanchola

S.Pradeep Vs Senior Divisional Manager