Allowed

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prameela

Kerala HC4 Jun 2014MACA/1916/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident claim appeal, the Kerala High Court allowed the insurer's appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The court held that under an 'act only policy', a gratuitous pillion rider is not covered without extra premium. Consequently, the insurer directing payment was set aside, and the driver and registered owner were held jointly liable.

What did the court decide?

The portion of the award directing the appellant to pay compensation is set aside. The 2nd and 3rd respondents are declared jointly and severally liable to compensate the first respondent.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Prameela — Insurance | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/14TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

MACA.No. 1916 of 2008

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 1350/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PARAVUR, DATED 16-02-2008

¶7

APPELLANT 3RD RESPONDENT:-:

¶8

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER, 3RD PARTY WING, OMANA BUILDING, PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI -35.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY:

¶11

1. PRAMEELA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O RAJAPPAN, ASSARIPADOM HOUSE, MANNAM DESOM, CHITTATTUKARA VILLAGE, N.PARAVUR.

¶12

2. AIBY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

¶13

D/O GOPINADHAN, ASSARIPADOM HOUSE, MANNAM DESOM, CHITTATTUKARA VILLAGE, N. PARAVUR.

¶14

3. BABU P.B., S/O BALAKRISHNAN, PONNESSERI HOUSE, MEKKAD P.O.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAJIV NAMBISAN

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶19

¶20

M.A.C.A. No.1916 of 2008 D

¶21

Dated this the 4^th day of June, 2014

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶24

Aggrieved by award dated 16.02.2008 in O.P. (MV) No.1350/2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims

¶25

Tribunal, North Paravur, the 3^rd respondent insurer has come up in appeal.

¶26

The Tribunal has granted an amount of ₹14,250/as compensation to the petitioner before the Tribunal, who is the first respondent herein.

¶27

The case of the first respondent is that while she

¶28

was travelling as a pillion rider by the motor cycle involved, which was ridden by the 2^nd respondent herein, it skidded

¶29

thereby she fell on the road and sustained injuries. The Tribunal has passed an award fixing a compensation of

¶30

M.A.C.A.1916/2008

¶31

: 2 :

¶32

₹14,250/- and directed the appellant herein to pay the amount and then to recover it from the registered owner of the vehicle.

¶33

Admittedly, the said motor bike was covered by an 'act only policy'. It is trite law that in the case of an 'act only policy', the pillion rider is not covered unless extra premium is not made for such coverage. The learned counsel for the appellant has invited my attention to the decision in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Tilak Singh and Others [(2006) 4 SCC 404] and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Balan @ Balakrishnan

¶34

and Others [2008 (1) KHC 202], wherein it was held that in the case of an 'act only policy', there is no coverage for the gratuitous passenger of a private vehicle, unless extra premium for such coverage is paid. It was further held in National Insurance Company Limited ( supra ) that in such a case, the principle of pay and recovery also does not apply as the passenger in a private vehicle is not covered by

¶35

M.A.C.A.1916/2008

¶36

: 3 :

¶37

the 'act only policy'. When the matter is one of want of coverage, the question of pay and recovery does not arise at all. Admittedly, this is not a case in which any violation of policy conditions has been raised. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay the amount of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal.

¶38

In the result, this appeal is allowed and that part of the award whereby the appellant is directed to pay the amount and recover the same from the registered owner of the vehicle is set aside. The 2^nd and 3^rd respondents herein are jointly and severally liable to compensate the first respondent.

¶39

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶40

aks/05/06

¶41

// True Copy //

¶42

PA to Judge

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prameela

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prameela

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijaya Babu Vs the Federal Bank Limited

Eliyas Vs Shanmugarajan

Babu Mathew Vs Basil Baby

Aboobacker Vs Purushu

Biju Vs Baburaj & Others

Damodaran Vs M.D., Ksrtc