Dismissed

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Thazhekurunthil Udayakumar and Another

Kerala HC18 Mar 2015MACA/69/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed an insurer's appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. Relying on a Full Bench decision, it held that the insurer cannot avoid liability due to the driver's lack of transport vehicle authorisation.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Tribunal award upholding the owner's claim against the insurer is sustained.

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Thazhekurunthil… — Insurance | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/27TH PHALGUNA, 1936

¶5

MACA.No. 69 of 2011 ( )

¶6

OPMV 501/2001 of M.A.C.T., THALASSERY APPELLANT(S)/3RD RESPONDENT:

¶7

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

¶8

PAYYANNUR NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI - 11.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)

¶10

SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:

¶12

THAZHEKURUNTHIL UDAYAKUMAR,

¶13

S/O.BHARATHAN, KANICHIRA, THAIKADAPPURAM P.O.

¶14

VIA.NEELESWARAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶15

N.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.N.K.KARTHYAYANI,

¶16

CHERUTHAZHAM, MANDUR P.O., VIA.PAYANGADI

¶17

KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN

¶19

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-032015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶21

M.A.C.A. No.69 of 2011

¶22

Dated 18^th March, 2015.

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The insurer in a petition for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has come up in this appeal challenging the decision of the Tribunal.

¶25

One Govindan filed the petition for compensation, alleging that damage has been caused to his building in an accident took place on 26.10.2000 involving a transport vehicle owned by the second respondent and driven by the first respondent. The appellant was the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident.

¶26

The appellant contested the petition contending that the first respondent was not holding an authorisation to drive a transport vehicle(badge).

¶27

The Tribunal rejected the contention raised by the appellant and passed an award permitting the claimant to recover the compensation determined as due from the

¶28

¶29

M.A.C.A. No.69 of 2011

¶30

appellant. The appellant is aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal and hence the appeal.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶32

A Full Bench of this Court has now held in National

¶33

Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jisha (2015(1) KLT 1) that want of authorisation for the driver of the vehicle involved in an accident to drive a transport vehicle would not absolve the insurer from the liability to indemnify the owner.

¶34

There is, therefore, no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶37

tgs

¶38

(true copy)

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Thazhekurunthil Udayakumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Thazhekurunthil Udayakumar and Another

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

Jamsheera Vs the National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sukumaran Vs Vijayalakshmi

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs P. Gangadharan

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs N.Balakrishnan and Another

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Thazhekurunthil Udayakumar and Another

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Anil Kumar