Remanded

National Insurance Co.Ltd., v. James George and Others

Kerala HC7 Jan 2013MACA/748/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in appeal against an MACT award, held that the trial court failed to consider the appellant's submissions regarding policy conditions and coverage limits for passenger injuries. The impugned award was set aside and remanded for fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award of MACT is set aside. The MACT, Pathanamthitta is directed to reconsider the matter afresh and dispose of it within six months.

National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs James George and Others — Insurance | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/17TH POUSHA 1934

¶5

MACA.No. 748 of 2011 (C)

¶6

OPMV.859/2002 of MACT, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

APPELLANT:

¶8

THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, KALLUMKATHARA BUILDINGS, KOZHENCHERRY ROAD,PATHANAMTHITTA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

JAMES GEORGE,AGED 39 YEARS

¶12

S/O.GEORGE, MADAPALLIL HOUSE, NANNUVAKKADU

¶13

PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.

¶14

MANOJ V.G, S/O.GOPI

¶15

VATTAPARAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, MAROOR, MALLASSERY PATHANAMTHITTA 689 646.

¶16

SUKUMARAN M.G, SUBHASINI VILASAM

¶17

MAROOR, MALLASSERY, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 646.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.T.K.KOSHY FOR R1 BY ADV. SMT.V.V.RISANI FOR R1 BY ADV. SRI.SABU I.KOSHY FOR R2 & R3

¶19

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

MACA.No. 748 of 2011

¶21

ORDER ON I.A.NO.1502/2011

¶22

DISMISSED.

¶23

7.1.2013. SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE.

¶24

// TRUE COPY //

¶25

P.A TO JUDGE.

¶26

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

¶27

M.A.C.A.No.748 Of 2011

¶28

Dated this the 7^th day of January, 2013.

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The National Insurance Company Limited is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the award dated 22.3.2010 in O.P (MV).No.859/2002 on the file of the M.A.C.T, Pathanamthitta. The 1^st respondent is the claimant. Respondents 2 & 3 are the rider and owner of the insured motor cycle respectively.

¶31

The case of the claimant is that while he was riding as

¶32

pillion rider in the insured motor cycle, it lost control and hit on a pedestrian and later the motor cycle capsized. The claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal took the view that though Act Liability Policy was issued, a sum of Rs.75/- has been collected as premium in respect of personal accident coverage of passenger and hence the appellant is liable to satisfy any award up to Rs.1,00,000/-. It is contended by the appellant that in order to get coverage under the personal accident scheme, there must be death or total permanent disablement. It is pointed out that it is clear from the IMT endorsement made in the policy and the liability is subject to the IMT endorsement Nos.16, 64, 70 and 71

¶33

::2::

¶34

M.A.C.A.No.748 Of 2011

¶35

made in the policy. It is submitted that there is no total permanent disability or disability as mentioned in endorsement IMT 16. It is submitted that insurance being a contract, the parties are governed by the terms of the contract and further subject to the endorsements made therein.

¶36

Ext.A8 produced in the original petition is the copy of the policy which stipulates Liability Only Policy. It is contended that the amount of Rs.75/- as shown in the policy is collected as

¶37

per IMT 16 covering the risk of Rs.1,00,000/- to the passenger of

¶38

the motor cycle in the following manner:

¶39

*Details of Injury*	*Scale of Compensation*
i) Death	100%
ii) Loss of 2 limbs or sight of two eyes or one limb and sight of one eye.	100%
iii) Loss of one limb or sight of one eye.	50%
iv) Permanent total
disablement from injuries other than named above.	100%

¶40

::3::

¶41

M.A.C.A.No.748 Of 2011

¶42

The vehicle involved in the accident is a motor cycle. The policy issued is a Liability Only Policy. Rs.75/- was collected as additional premium to cover the risk of a passenger. The contention raised is that the capital sum insured therein was payable only in the case of death or injuries mentioned in IMT 16. It is submitted that since the claimant do not come under IMT 16, he cannot claim any compensation on the basis of the additional premium. The contentions raised by the appellant was not considered or dealt with by the Tribunal. In the circumstance, the matter requires reconsideration.

¶43

In the result, the impugned award is set aside. There will be a direction to the M.A.C.T., Pathanamthitta, to reconsider the matter afresh and dispose of the same, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶44

HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge.

¶45

bkn/-

National Insurance Co.Ltd., v. James George and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co.Ltd., v. James George and Others

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

Pachalloor Sree Bhadrakali Devi Kshethra Devaswom Vs S.Mohanan

The General Manger, Ksidc,Tvm. Vs P.K.Padmanabhan

Thiruvananthapuram Jilla Chumattu Thozhilali Congress (Intuc) Vs All Kerala Headload and General Workers Union

Phonographic Performance Limited Vs Casino Hotel - Cgh Earth

The Regional Director, Esi Corpn. Vs M/S. Arjuna Natural Extracts (P) Ltd.

The United India Insurance Co.Ltd, Vs Prakash.M.T and 2 Others