Dismissed

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. the K.S.E.B and Another

Kerala HC5 Nov 2013MACA/607/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding of negligence under res ipsa loquitur and affirmed the compensation amount based on the transformer's replacement value including insulation charges.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's award remained unchanged.

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs the K.S.E.B and Another — 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

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/14TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶6

MACA.No. 607 of 2010 ( )

¶7

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1042/2005 of MACT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 16-07-2009

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶9

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., OTTAPALAM REP.BY THE MANAGER.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, VYDUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICALS DIVISION, KERALA STATE, ELECTRICITY BOARD KODUNGALLUR.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN & SRI.PULIKOOL ABUBACKER, SC, KSEB

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

S.Siri Jagan & K. Ramakrishnan, JJ

¶18

==============================

¶19

M.A.C.A.No.607 of 2010

¶20

=============================== Dated this, the 05^th day of November, 2013.

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Siri Jagan, J.

¶23

The Insurance Company, in a claim for damage to property preferred by the Kerala State Electricity Board before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda, is the appellant herein. A transformer belonging to the Kerala State Electricity Board was damaged in an accident caused by a vehicle insured with the appellant. The Electricity Board filed OP(MV) No.1042 of 2005 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda, claiming compensation for the damage to the transformer. The Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant in causing the accident and damaging the transformer and awarded a compensation of Rs. 90,511/- as the replacement value of the transformer. The appellant is challenging the award of the Tribunal both on the question of negligence as well as the quantum.

¶24

According to the appellant, no evidence was adduced to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the

¶25

vehicle. Secondly, what has been awarded is the cost of a transformer based on an invoice produced by the board for purchasing 30 transformers which cannot be accepted as the compensation for the damages to the transformer. Therefore, both on the question of negligence and the question of quantum, the Tribunal went wrong is the contention raised.

¶26

This is opposed by the counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board who would contend that the Tribunal has considered every aspect of the matter in the right perspective and the award does not call for any interference at the hands of this court.

¶27

We have considered the rival contentions of both sides in detail.

¶28

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the vehicle insured with the appellant hit a transformer belonging to the Kerala State Electricity Board placed by the side of the road. Therefore, the doctrine of RES IPSA LOQUITUR squarely applies to the facts of this case. If the appellant wanted to negative that presumption, it was for the appellant to adduce evidence in support of the same. The appellant has not chosen to do anything in that direction. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the

¶29

vehicle insured with the appellant was negligent in driving the vehicle which resulted in the accident, damaging the transformer belonging to the Kerala State Electricity Board. When the transformer is damaged and cannot be used any more, then naturally it will have to be replaced. So, the compensation due to the board is the replacement value of the transformer. The board has produced an invoice for purchasing 30 transformers for a total price of Rs.25,65,335/-.

¶30

From that the value of one of the transformers could be ascertained by an arithmetic calculation which came to Rs.85,511/-. To that the Tribunal added Rs.5,000/- for insulation charges as the total compensation. We do not find any infirmity in the assessment of compensation also by the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶31

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Jugde.

¶32

Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.

¶33

¶34

[True copy]

¶35

P.A to Judge

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. the K.S.E.B and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. the K.S.E.B and Another

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

Nagappan Vs Cijo

Joseph Mathew @ Jose Vs Tomy George @ Tom and 2 Others

Vasnathakumari Vs K.M.Salim

Dhanesh Vs Subramanian

Bobby Francis Vs P.a.Mukundan

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs O.K.Azees