The High Court dismissed the owner's appeal against a Tribunal order that awarded compensation to an injured passenger injured while 17 passengers were transported in a goods vehicle.
Appeal dismissed; Tribunal order affirming owner's liability upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2013/11TH CHAITHRA 1935
MACA.No. 554 of 2013 ()
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV.1339/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 21-08-2012
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT IN OPMV:
ANUP UNNIKRISHNAN THETTUVELIL HOUSE MELUKARA KOZHENCHERRY
BY ADVS.SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE SMT.R.SEEMA SRI.K.APPUKUTTAN NAIR
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS IN OPMV:
1. BIJU KUMAR S/O.RAMACHANDRADAS VEMBUTHANATHU MULUKARA KOZHENCHERRY VILLAGE-689645
2. C.R.UNNI S/O.RAGHAVAN CHARIVUKALAYIL VEEDU KOZHENCHERRY EAST--689645
3. THE DIVISIIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED GANDARIAMMAN KOVIL ROAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.-695001
R3 BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH BY SRI.M.A.GEORGE
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
stk
S.SIRI JAGAN
&
BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ
M.A.C.A No.554 of 2013
Dated this, the 1st day of April,2013
JUDGMENT
Siri Jagan, J
The appellant is the owner of a motor vehicle, the negligent driving of which, by its driver, caused an accident and injuries to the 1st respondent herein. The 1st respondent filed O.P.(MV)No.1339/04 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the driver of the vehicle and awarded Rs.94,145/- with interest and costs as compensation to the 1st respondent. Although the vehicle which was a goods vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent, the Tribunal found that on account of the carrying of 17 passengers in the goods vehicle there was violation of the conditions of the policy and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the appellant for payment of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the 1st respondent and permitted the Insurance Company to recover
the compensation paid by them to the 1st respondent, from the appellant, owner of the vehicle. The appellant is challenging the said finding.
2
M.A.C.A No.554 of 2013
In the above circumstance, we do not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed.
sd/-
S.SIRI JAGAN JUDGE
sd/- BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
stk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of a goods vehicle that carried 17 passengers in violation of policy conditions.
Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal correctly absolved the insurance company and fastened liability on the vehicle owner.
ANUP UNNIKRISHNAN
BIJU KUMAR
C.R.UNNI
THE DIVISIIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
S.SIRI JAGAN
BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
