Partly allowed

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd v. Raju

Kerala HC23 Jan 2013MACA/892/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident claims appeal, the High Court allowed the appeal partly. It set aside the Tribunal's award, which had granted some compensation for death and injury but also disability compensation. Due to lack of evidence regarding vehicle usage for hire or reward and absence of a disability certificate, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on liability and disab

What did the court decide?

The impugned award is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration of liability and disability compensation claims.

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Raju — 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

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

¶5

MACA.No. 892 of 2011 ( )

¶6

(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV.1566/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,ATTINGAL DATED 20-01-2010)

¶7

APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶8

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ATTINGAL NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE,M.G.ROAD,KOCHI-11.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:

¶11

RAJU, S/O.VELUKUTTY CHETTIYAR, VIJAYA BHAVAN,THALIKUZHY PO,PIN 695612.

¶12

THULASEEDHARAN NAIR.B, KARTHIKA, KALLADAKARIKOM,ELAVATTOM,CHITHARA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN 695 562.

¶13

BIJU.S., S/O.D.SUGATHAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,CHATHANKONAM,KALLARA P.O. PIN 695608.

¶14

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

¶15

HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.

¶16

M.A.C.A No. 892 OF 2011

¶17

Dated this the 23^rd day of January 2013

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

New India Assurance Company is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the Award dated 20.1.2010 in O.P. (MV) No. 1566/2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal. The claim petition was filed claiming compensation alleging that the claimant sustained injuries in the motor accident that took place on 8.6.04. The Tribunal allowed the claimant to realise Rs.25,540/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5 %. The Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to deposit the amount of compensation. The contention raised by the appellant before the Tribunal is that the offending vehicle namely jeep was insured as private car that the jeep was used by the claimant for hire or reward for carrying goods and therefore, there is a violation of the policy conditions. Ext.B1 copy of the policy issued was an act only policy for a private car. The Tribunal found that there is no evidence to prove that the applicant was using the vehicle for hire or reward. Ext.A2 is the private complaint filed by the claimant. In Ext.A2 complaint, the claimant has stated that he hired the vehicle for

¶20

M.A.C.A.892/2011 2

¶21

reward for carrying goods. In the light of the positive evidence before the Tribunal to show that the claimant had used the vehicle for hire or reward, it is contended that there is no justification for finding that there is no evidence to prove that the claimant was using the vehicle for hire or reward. In the light of Ext.A2 complaint filed by the claimant himself, there is much force in the said contention. The learned counsel also pointed out that the Tribunal granted Rs.7,680/- as compensation for permanent disability applying the formula. It is submitted that the claimant was not examined nor he has produced disability certificate to show that he suffered any permanent disability. It is seen that no justifiable reasons are stated by the Tribunal for granting compensation under the head disability. The Tribunal simply calculated the compensation for permanent disability without any supporting evidence. Therefore, the claim for compensation under the head disability also requires reconsideration. In the light of the two contentions raised as stated above and on the basis of the evidence on record, I find that the matter requires reconsideration by the court.

¶22

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is set aside. The case is remanded to the court below for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Tribunal shall reconsider the contentions regarding the liability of the appellant

¶23

M.A.C.A.892/2011 3

¶24

Company and the claim regarding disability compensation. All other findings need not be disturbed. In the light of the remand order passed by this Court, the direction in the decree that, the 3^rd respondent shall pay the compensation amount awarded together with interest and costs of Rs. 1,200/- within 90 days from the date of the award, if any, and the applicant is entitled to realise 9% interest per annum from this day till realisation is set aside.

¶25

Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE

¶26

al/-

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd v. Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd v. Raju

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.

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Kunhumon

Suresh @ Surendran Vs Niyas C.K.

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Arun