Allowed

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Maniyan

Kerala HC21 Mar 2012MACA/17/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed an appeal against an award granted under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court set aside the compensation because the deceased's income exceeded the statutory threshold and the accident was a self-accident, where compensation cannot be awarded to the tort-feasors' heirs.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award was set aside and the Original Petition (Op.MV) No. 159/2002 was dismissed. The amount deposited by the appellant was to be released immediately.

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Maniyan — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2012/1ST CHAITHRA 1934

¶5

MACA.No. 17 of 2008 ( )

¶6

----------------------OPMV.159/2002 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA.

¶7

APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶8

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ALAPPUZHA, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. [WRONGLY SHOWN AS NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY IN OP(MV).159 OF 2002-MACT, ALAPPUZHA].

¶9

BY SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶11

1. MANIYAN, S/O. DAMODARAN,

¶12

KORAMPARAMBIL, SOUTH ARYAD, ALAPPUZHA.

¶13

2. SARASAMMA, W/O. MANIYAN, DO. DO.

¶14

3. SAJIMON, S/O MANIYAN, DO. DO.

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.A.KRISHNAN, SRI.DAVID JOHN.

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ. ===================== M.A.C.A. NO. 17 of 2008

¶19

===================== Dated this the 21^st day of March 2012

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Pius C.Kuriakose,J.

¶22

The Insurance company challenges in this appeal, the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granting compensation to respondents 1 to 3 who are legal representatives of one Maniyan, a coir factory employee who lost his life in a road traffic accident. The Original Petition filed by the respondents was one under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Tribunal considered the application as one under Section 163A itself. The learned Tribunal nevertheless ordered a total compensation of Rs.2,08,500/- inclusive of compensation for transportation, pain and suffering, loss of love and affection etc. The company challenges the award mainly on two grounds. The first ground is that on the averments in the

¶23

MACA 17/2008

¶24

-2-

¶25

original petition itself, the deceased was drawing a monthly income of Rs.6000/- and as per Ext.A15 certificate produced by respondents themselves also, the annual income of the deceased was Rs.60,000/-.

¶26

Sri Mathews Jacob, learned senior counsel for the appellant Insurance company would argue that on the authority of Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. Uunited India Insurance Co.Ltd.[(2004)5 S.C.C.385 ], Section 163A could not have been invoked on the admitted factual situation. We find force in the above submission of the learned senior counsel. It is unfortunate that the learned Tribunal did not notice this crucial aspect of the matter while entertaining and enquiring into the original petition as one under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The next ground on which the award is challenged is founded on another judgment of the Supreme Court in Nigamma v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. [(2009)13 S.C.C.710].

¶27

MACA 17/2008

¶28

-3-

¶29

The deceased was riding a scooter. The stand taken by the respondent was that the scooter did not belong to the deceased. The scooter belongs to the first respondent. Even then applying the principles laid down in Nigamma's case (supra), it has to be found that the deceased has stepped into the shoes of the owner. In other words, the tort is committed by the insured himself. In a self accident, awarding compensation to the respondents, who claimed as legal heirs of the tort-feasors, cannot be countenanced. Even though Sri A.Krishnan, learned counsel for the respondents made a very valient endeavour to support the impugned award, as the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the appellant are founded on judgments of the Supreme Court, we are bound to accept these arguments.

¶30

The result is the appeal is allowed. The impugned award is set aside and O.P(MV)No.159/2002 is dismissed.

¶31

MACA 17/2008

¶32

-4-

¶33

The amount deposited by the appellant company towards compensation awarded by the Tribunal will be released immediately to the appellant – Insurance company.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE

¶38

ks.

¶39

True copy