Partly allowed

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Madhu and Others

Kerala HC1 Nov 2013MACA/1160/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment modifies motor accident tribunal awards to allow the insurance company to recover paid amounts from the vehicle owner. The court holds that the absence of a valid driver's badge violates policy conditions, granting the insurer subrogation rights against the owner despite initial tribunal findings to the contrary.

What did the court decide?

The impugned awards were modified to allow the appellant to recover amounts paid from the vehicle owner and driver.

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Madhu and Others — Insurance | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/10TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶6

MACA.No. 1160 of 2010 ( )

¶7

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1406/2006 of MACT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 28-01-2010

¶8

APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT :

¶9

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, METRO PALACE, GROUND FLOOR, OPP.NORTH RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICER

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

MADHU,S/O.DHARMARAJAN, KARINATT HOUSE, P.O.KODUNGALLUR, LOKAMALESWARAM-680664

¶13

SUJITH,S/O.SIVARAMAN, THOTTASSERY (H) P.O.KOTHAPARAMBU, KODUNGALLUR- 680 668.

¶14

SREENIVASAN, 56 YEARS, OLD, S/O.ADIMA F/O.DECEASED SINI, VELAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KARUPADANNA THRISSUR DIST-680670

¶15

KARTHU, 54 YEARS OLD, M/O.DECEASED SINI VELAPARAMBIL HOUSE P.O.KARUPADANNA THRISSUR DIST-680670

¶16

SIMI @ CHINNU, SIS/O.DECEASED SINI, VELAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KARUPADANNA THRISSUR DIST-PIN-680670

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-11-2013, ALONG WITH MACA.NOS.1161/10 &1154/10, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶20

---------------------------------------------------------------------M.A.C.A.Nos.1160, 1161 & 1154 of 2010 --------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 1^st day of November, 2013

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

S. Siri Jagan, J

¶23

In all these three appeals, the same

¶24

insurance company in O.P.(M.V).)Nos.1406/2006, 1337/2006, and 1656/2006 respectively before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, is the appellant. The claimants in those O.P.’s filed the claims, seeking compensation for the death of their respective breadwinner in an accident, caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle, insured with the appellant. The tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants for the death of their breadwinners and directed the insurance company to satisfy the award. The appellant is aggrieved by that part of the award, whereby the appellant has not been given at least the right to recover the award amounts from the owner of the vehicle on account of

¶25

M.A.C.A.Nos.1160, 1161 & 1154 of 2010 2

¶26

violation of policy conditions. The contention of the appellant is that, since the driver did not have a valid badge at the time of accident, the appellant is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle, which has not been properly considered by the tribunal. The appellant submits that, the appellant is entitled to at least recovery rights against the owner of the vehicle, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Iyyapan v. M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd., (2013 (3) KLJ 306).

¶27

Although, notices have been served on the respondents, none of them have chosen to enter appearance to contest the matter.

¶28

We have considered the contentions of the

¶29

appellant.

¶30

The Supreme Court has considered the question of liability of the insurance company, in cases where the negligent driver does not have a valid badge to

¶31

M.A.C.A.Nos.1160, 1161 & 1154 of 2010 3

¶32

drive a transport vehicle, which the vehicle involved in this accident also was. In Iyyapan’s case (supra), the Supreme Court held that, it is for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the amounts awarded in case there is any violation of the policy condition. In that case, the violation of the policy condition was absence of valid badge for the driver. The fact that the driver had no badge is found by the tribunal in paragraph 9 of the award. But the tribunal negatives the contention of the appellant, relying on the decision of this court in Sulabha Leela Mandiram v. Smt. Suseela and another (AIR 2009 Kerala 43) . But in view of the decision in Iyyapan’s case, the appellant is entitled to recover the amounts, they paid to the claimants, from the owner and driver of the vehicle. Accordingly, the impugned awards are modified to the effect that, the appellant is entitled to recover the amounts paid by them to satisfy the awards of the tribunal from the owner and

¶33

M.A.C.A.Nos.1160, 1161 & 1154 of 2010

¶34

¶35

driver of the vehicle.

¶36

With the above modification of the impugned

¶37

award, the appeals are disposed of.

Sd/-

S. Siri Jagan, Judge

Sd/-

K. Ramakrishnan, Judge

¶42

// True Copy //

¶43

P.A. to Judge

¶44

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Madhu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Madhu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Unnikrishnan Vs Riyas & Others

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs S.Mohammed Ali and Others

Bikas Sarkar Vs Varkey,S/O.Antony

State of Kerala Vs Vijayalatha

State of Kerala Vs C.Kushan

Vijayan Vs Kunjan