Allowed

Chandran A.R. v. Thanka

Kerala HC21 Jan 2016MACA/2637/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed an appeal by a vehicle owner against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. Citing Augustine V.M., the Court held that lack of a fitness certificate does not absolve the insurer. The permit for the insurer to recover compensation from the owner was vacated.

What did the court decide?

The permit granted to the third respondent to recover compensation from the appellant is vacated; the impugned award is modified.

Chandran A.R. Vs Thanka — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2016/1ST MAGHA, 1937

¶5

MACA.No. 2637 of 2015 ()

¶6

OPMV 944/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR

¶7

APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT :

¶8

---------------------------------------------

¶9

CHANDRAN A.R., AGED 60 YEARS, S/O RAMAN, ALUKKAL HOUSE, THIRUVALAYANNUR DESOM KOLLOUR P.O., VADAKKEKKAD, THRISSUR.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.RAJIT

¶11

SMT.V.VIJITHA

¶12

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS :

¶13

----------------------------------------------------------------

¶14

1. THANKA, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O KUMARAN, VELLAMAKKAL HOSUE, PUNNAYOURKULAM VILLAGE, PUNNAYOORKULAM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR-680506

¶15

2. SANEESH A.C., AGED 32 YEARS,S/O CHANDRAN, ALUKKAL HOUSE, THIRUVALAYANNUR DESOM KOLLOUR P.O., VADAKKEKKAD, THRISSUR - 680501

¶16

3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THRIPRAYAR BRANCH OFFICE, THRIPRAYAR THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680501

¶17

R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.JOY BY SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN

¶18

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶21

M.A.C.A. No.2637 of 2015

¶22

Dated 21^st January, 2016.

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The owner of a vehicle involved in an accident which

¶25

was the subject matter of a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has come up in this appeal challenging the decision in the claim petition.

¶26

The first respondent filed the claim petition alleging that she sustained injuries in an accident took place on 2.2.2006 involving a vehicle owned by the appellant. The vehicle at the relevant time was covered by a valid insurance policy. The third respondent was the insurer of the vehicle. The third respondent while admitting the issuance of the insurance policy contended that the appellant was not holding a fitness certificate for the vehicle involved in the accident as on the date of the accident and as such, they are entitled to recover from the appellant, the compensation, if any, payable

¶27

MACA 2637 of 2015

¶28

¶29

to the claimant. The tribunal accepted the contention raised by the third respondent and while passing an award directing them to pay compensation to the first respondent, permitted them to recover the compensation directed to be paid to the first respondent from the appellant. The appellant is aggrieved by the said direction of the tribunal and hence this appeal.

¶30

The fact that the vehicle at the time of the accident was covered by a valid insurance policy is not in dispute. The contention of the insurer was only that the appellant was not holding a valid fitness certificate for the vehicle at the time of the accident and therefore, they are entitled to be absolved from their liability to indemnify the appellant. In Augustine V.M. v. Ayyappankutty (2015(2) KLT 139), a Full Bench of this Court held that want of fitness certificate for the vehicle at the time of accident will not absolve the insurer from its liability to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. In the light of the said decision of this Court, the award impugned in the appeal is liable to be modified.

¶31

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the award

¶32

MACA 2637 of 2015

¶33

¶34

impugned in the appeal is modified, vacating the permission granted to the third respondent to recover the compensation directed to be paid to the claimant, from the appellant. All the interlocutory applications in the appeal are closed.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶37

tgs

¶38

(true copy)

Chandran A.R. v. Thanka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandran A.R. v. Thanka

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

The Regional Director Vs Seenath.K.P

E.S.I. Corporation Vs Chaya Industries Ltd.Nida Kanjikode

Moothoran @ Sreedharan Vs Ibrahim

John Vs Pappu @ Devassy

Shahul Hameed Vs Sulekha Beevi

Kunnathu Sivadasan Vs Arikkanath Sunil Kumar