Partly allowed

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Kunhumon

Kerala HC23 Jan 2013MACA/150/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed an insurance appeal, setting aside a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The Court held the Tribunal erred in not reconsidering whether driving a JCB required a specific license authorization beyond a general 'light motor vehicle' permit, under the Motor Vehicles Act.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after affording parties an opportunity to adduce evidence.

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Kunhumon — Insurance | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2013/3RD MAGHA 1934

¶5

MACA.No. 150 of 2012 ()

¶6

(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV.1201/2008 of M.A.C.T OTTAPPALAM DATED 18-05-2011)

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT IN OP(MV):

¶8

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. ZENITH HOUSE,KESAVARAO KHADE MARG,MAHALAKSHMI MUMBAI - 400034.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.RAMANAND

¶10

SRI.R.AJITH KUMAR (128/84)

¶11

RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS :

¶12

KUNHUMON @ KUNJAN S/O.ABDULLA,PULIKKAL VEEDU,PALAPPURAM OTTAPALAM - 679 101.

¶13

KRISHNADAS

¶14

S/O.GOVINDAN,TEA SHOP HOUSE,VALIYAKALLIYAMPARA PARISAKKAL (P.O),VADAKARAPPATHI,CHITTOOR

¶15

PALAKKADDISTRICT - 678 101.

¶16

KUMARESAN S/O.VELUCHAMI,KALAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,ANNANTHODI THACHANATTUKARA,MANNARKKAD - 678 582.

¶17

R2,R3 BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI

¶18

R2,R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN

¶19

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

al.

¶21

HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.

¶22

M.A.C.A No.150 OF 2012

¶23

Dated this the 23^rd day of January 2013

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

M/s.ICICI General Insurance Company Ltd. is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the award dated 18.5.2011 in O.P.(MV)No.1201/2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam. The first respondent herein is the claimant. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed in the claim petition.

¶26

The claim petition was filed seeking compensation for the injury sustained to the claimant in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 16.8.2008. The claimant was hit by the JCB. As a result of the hit, he fell down and sustained injuries. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim. The claimant was allowed to recover and realise a sum of Rs.91,450/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally.

¶27

In the written statement filed by the appellant it is interalia contended that the driver had no valid driving licence to drive the JCB at the material time of the accident and hence the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.

¶28

M.A.C.A.150/2012 2

¶29

4.The Tribunal rejected the contention raised by the appellant. The Tribunal found that the JCB can be considered as light motor vehicle because it's unladen weight is only 6990 Kg as per Ext.B1 Registration Certificate and hence the driver was having valid driving licence to drive the JCB.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that under Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, separate authorizations are required in the driving licence for entitling the holder to drive each of the different classes of vehicles specified in the description as mentioned in Section 10(2) (j) of the Motor Vehicles Act and not as a light motor vehicle mentioned under Sec.10(2) (d) of the Act. It is submitted that special skill and experience are very much required for driving JCB and a person who is authorised to drive only light motor vehicle cannot have such skill and experience to drive and operate JCB. Therefore, it is submitted that separate authorization to drive motor vehicle of specified description in the driving licence should be required for driving JCB. It is pointed out that there is no such authorization is seen in Ext.B2 driving licence and hence its holder is not having any valid licence to drive JCB. This contention as stated above was not considered by the Tribunal while deciding the issue. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the matter

¶31

M.A.C.A.150/2012 3

¶32

requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is set aside. There will be a direction to the Tribunal to reconsider the matter afresh after affording an opportunity to parties to adduce evidence. It is made clear that the appellant has not disputed the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶33

Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 20^th February 2013 . The counsel shall inform the parties.

¶34

Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE

¶35

al/-

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Kunhumon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Kunhumon

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

R.Haripriya Vs the Branch Manager, the New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Vijayan V.G. Vs Mariya Susa

M. Dineshkumar Vs Manoj Mon.E.

Suresh @ Surendran Vs Niyas C.K.

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Raju

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Arun