Allowed

Nishi Moideen v. Haridas & Ors.

Kerala HC17 Jan 2013MACA/2147/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal's award. It set aside the impugned award, deleted the supplemental fourth respondent, and remanded the case to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the liability of the third respondent insurance company based newly produced documents.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned award and remanded the case to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the third respondent's liability. The supplemental fourth respondent was deleted.

Nishi Moideen Vs Haridas & Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/27TH POUSHA 1934

¶5

M.A.C.A.No. 2147 of 2011 (c)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN OPMV.774/2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIM TRIBUNAL, TIRUR, DATED 11-02-2011

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶8

NISHI MOIDEEN, AGED 44 YRS, W/O.MOIDEEN E.V.,VELLAKKAMATTOM HOUSE,P.O.KOOVALLOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN

¶10

SRI.P.G.SURESH

¶11

SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1. HARIDAS, S/O.SANKARAN,KOTTAYIL HOUSE,NANNAMMUKKU P.O,. VIA-CHANGARAMKULAM,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

2. ANNU MOHAN, S/O.MOHAN,EDASSERY KUDIYIL HOUSE,VARAPETTY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶15

3. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., XL3599,FORTH FLOOR, ELIZABATH ALEXANDER MEMORIAL BUILDING, SHANMUGHAM ROAD,MARINE DRIVE,ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶16

4. BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, FINANCE TOWER,NEAR INDIAN EXPRESS,KALOOR, COCHIN-682018.

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

¶18

R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.S.BREEZ

¶19

R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.RAMANAND

¶20

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

LSN

¶22

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

¶23

M.A.C.A.No.2147 Of 2011

¶24

Dated this the 17^th day of January, 2013.

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

The 2^nd respondent in O.P.(MV).No.774/2008 is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the award dated 11.2.2011 in the said O.P on the file of the M.A.C.T., Tirur. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and an award was passed allowing the claimant to realise Rs.52,350/- as compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum with costs. Respondents 1 & 2 are directed to pay the compensation amount awarded. The 3^rd respondent and supplemental 4^th respondent are exonerated from the liability.

¶27

According to the claimant, the 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the offending car involved in the accident. Later, he impleaded supplemental 4^th respondent as its insurer. Both respondents denied insurance coverage to the above vehicle. The Tribunal considered the contentions of the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and supplemental 4^th respondent Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company. The Tribunal found that no reliable document was produced by the parties to prove

¶28

::2::

¶29

M.A.C.A.No.2147 Of 2011

¶30

the coverage. Therefore, the Tribunal held that 3^rd respondent and supplemental 4^th respondent are liable to be exonerated. This appeal is preferred by the 2^nd respondent owner. The appellant contended that he had entrusted the policy documents and all such other documents to his lawyer, who appeared for an on behalf of him before the Tribunal. But, the same was not seen to be produced before the Tribunal. It is submitted that on enquiry he was informed that it was due to an inadvertent mistake and that the same could not be produced before the Tribunal. It is submitted that there was valid policy for the vehicle at the time of the alleged accident. The appellant has produced the original document of insurance and the copy of the insurance along with I.A.No.1182/2012, praying to accept Annexures A1 & A2 in evidence.

¶31

The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited submitted that there is no valid insurance coverage to the vehicle at the time of the accident. It is pointed out that they have issued only a cover note on 15.3.2009 for the above vehicle and that the 2^nd respondent owner has not paid the premium.

¶32

::3::

¶33

M.A.C.A.No.2147 Of 2011

¶34

In view of the fact that the petitioner produced the documents relating to the insurance coverage, the matter will have to be decided afresh in the light of the contentions raised by both sides. In the light of the contentions raised by the appellant and respondents, the supplemental 4^th respondent, namely, Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company is not a necessary party and therefore, the supplemental 4^th respondent is deleted from the party array.

¶35

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award is set aside. The case is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The remand is limited to the consideration of the question of liability of the 3^rd respondent insurance company. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 11.2.2013. The counsel shall inform the parties. The Tribunal shall dispose of the case within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties. The Registry shall return the original documents produced by the appellant in I.A.No.1182/2012.

¶36

bkn/-

Nishi Moideen v. Haridas & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishi Moideen v. Haridas & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Kerala Vs a. Soman, S/O.Gopalan

State of Kerala Vs Panthalkaran Aboobacker Molla

T.Biji Vs a.Antony

The Joint Director, Esi Corporation, Vs M/S.Eastern Rug Mills

P.K.Moideenkunhi Vs Abdul Rahiman

K.M. Ibrahimkutty Vs Abdul Khader