Dismissed

The Proprietor, Burhani Industries v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

Kerala HC27 Nov 2013MACA/988/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal dismissing by the Kerala High Court upheld an award that excluded the insurance company from liability. The court rejected the claim that a private car policy covered deceased gratuitous passengers, clarifying that the premium labeled for such coverage actually paid for employees.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; insurance company exonerated from liability as the deceased gratuitous passenger was not covered.

The Proprietor, Burhani Industries Vs National… — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

MACA.No. 988 of 2011 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN (OPMV)NO 1189/2001 OF PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOZHIKODE.

¶7

APPELLANT / 1ST RESPONDENT:-

¶8

----------------------------------------------THE PROPRIETOR, BURHANI INDUSTRIALS PALLIKANDY ROAD, CALICUT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS 2 TO 8 / PETITIONERS:-

¶11

1. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, P.M.TAJ ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001

¶12

2. T.V.SURESH, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, XI/309, NADUVILA PARAMBIL HOUSE, KUMBALANGI, KOCHI-7

¶13

3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD CITY BRANCH OFFICE II, N.H.ROAD, KALOOR KOCHI-17

¶14

4. MUHAMMED SUDHIR, S/O.HAJARUMMA, CHITTUVALAPPIL HOUSE, THRIKKULASEKHARA, KODUNGALLOOR-680 664.

¶15

5. A.M.MUHAMMED,S/O.ALI BAI, AGED 70 YEARS, MATCHES WALLA, H.NO.1961 A, THANGAL ROAD NAGARAM, AMSOM DESOM , KOZHIKODE-673 001

¶16

6. SUBAIDA, W/O.A.M.MUHAMMED, R/A.-DO-

¶17

7. SHABIR MUHAMMED, S/O.MUHAMMED,AGED 40 R/A.-DO-

¶18

8. EBRAHIM ALI BAI, S/O.ALI BAI, AGED 50 , MATCHIVILA, FRANCIS ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001

¶19

9. AMINA EBRAHIM,W/O.IBRAHIM,

¶20

AGED 45 YEARS, R/A.-DO-

¶21

MACA.No. 988 of 2011 ( )

¶22

10. HASNAIN, S/O.EBRAHIM, AGED 28 YEARS, R/A.-DO-

¶23

11. ZAINAB MUSTHAFA, D/O.EBRAHIM, AGED 31 YEARS, -DO-

¶24

12. THASNEEM MUSTHAFA, D/O.IBRAHIM, AGED 26 YEARS, -DO-

¶25

R3 BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE

¶26

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶27

KKS

¶28

S.SIRI JAGAN & K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶29

M.A.C.A. No.988 of 2011

¶30

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

¶31

Dated this the 27^th day of November, 2013

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

S. Siri Jagan, J .

¶34

The appellant is the 1^st respondent in O.P.(MV)No. 1189/2001 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The same was filed by respondents 8 to 12 herein claiming compensation for the death of Murthaza, who died in an accident, caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle owned by the appellant. The Tribunal, after finding negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, awarded a total amount of Rs.5,84,721/- as compensation. But on the ground that the insurance policy was one issued only for satisfying the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the car was a private car, in which the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, exonerated the insurance company from liability. The appellant is challenging the award to the extent of exonerating the insurance company from liability. The contention of the appellant is that the policy was issued

¶35

M.A.C.A. No.988 of 2011

¶36

-2-

¶37

after taking an additional premium from the appellant to cover a non-fare-paying passenger also. Therefore, the gratuitous passenger also is covered by the policy, is the contention raised.

¶38

The learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the additional premium of Rs.15/- shown in the policy is not for non-fare-paying passenger but for employees in the car. The appellant has no case that the deceased was an employee in the appellant's car. That being so, the additional premium paid is not in respect of a gratuitous passenger, is the contention raised.

¶39

We have considered the rival contentions in

¶40

detail.

¶41

We are of opinion that the ambiguity arose because of the fact that the policy was issued in a printed form by filling up by computer. Consequently the details of premium printed did not correspond to the columns in the form as such. The figures regarding premium was printed on a higher level than the column for the same in the form.

¶42

M.A.C.A. No.988 of 2011

¶43

-3-

¶44

Therefore, the basic premium paid was shown above the column for basic premium and the premium of Rs.15/- paid was printed in the column for the legal liability to a nonfare-paying passenger. But actually it corresponds to premium for “employees (car)”. This was explained by DW1, the officer of the insurance company as well. We are fully satisfied that the contention of the insurance company is perfectly correct. It is only because of computer printing that this mistake occurred. Going by the policy, no additional premium was paid for non-fare-paying passenger. That being so, the deceased, who was a gratuitous passenger in a private car was not covered by the policy which is the law laid down on the subject. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the contention of the appellant and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶49

Shg/

The Proprietor, Burhani Industries v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Proprietor, Burhani Industries v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

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 Registrar,University of Calicut Vs Esi Corporation and Another

Binoj Antony Vs M/S New India Assurance Co.Ltd.

Santhosh Mathew Vs Ganeshan P. and Others

Martin George Vs the State of Kerala

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Madhu

Merlin Davis Vs P.R.Radhakrishnan