Dismissed

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. C.R.Kishoremon and Others

Kerala HC9 Feb 2017MACA/1187/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant insurance company challenged an award granting compensation to an injured pillion rider. The court held that the policy covered gratuitous passengers and distinguishing United India Insurance, held that the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured for the pillion rider's injuries.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the award in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal favoring the respondents was upheld.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs C.R.Kishoremon and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/20TH MAGHA 1938

¶5

MACA.No. 1187 of 2008 ( )

¶6

-------------------------AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 2102/2002 of M.A.C.T.,KOTTAYAM DATED 30-08-2007

¶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 AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: ----------------------------------------------1. C.R.KISHOREMON, S/O RAMANKUTTY, CHALUVELIL HOUSE,, AVERMA KARA, PERUMBADAVOM P.O.,MULAKKULAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DIST.

¶11

2. ALAVUDEEN E.A., EDACHERIL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶12

3. PRADEEPMON C.R., CHALUVELIL HOUSE, AVERMA KARA, PERUMBADAVOM P.O., MULAKULAM.

¶13

R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.AJEESH K.SASI R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)

¶14

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

acd

¶16

P.D. RAJAN, J.

¶17

M.A.C.A.No.1187 of 2008

¶18

Dated this the 9^th day of February, 2017

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal is preferred by the 3^rd respondent Insurance Company against the award in O.P.(MV) No.2102/2002 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. The first respondent, who is the claimant in the above O.P.(MV), sustained injury in a motor accident on 21.8.2002 while he was travelling as pillion rider in a motor cycle bearing Registration No.KBE 8592 driven by the third respondent in this appeal. When it reached at the place of occurrence, it collided with a jeep, thereby the first respondent sustained serious injury. Immediately, he was removed to hospital. The Insurance Company admitted the insurance, but they took a contention

¶21

that the first respondent was a pillion rider and as per the

¶22

M.A.C.A.No.1187/2008 2

¶23

policy the pillion rider is not covered.

¶24

The rider and owner were set ex parte in the lower court. No oral evidence has been adduced by the claimant. His documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A7 and

¶25

the copy of the certificate issued from Medical College Hospital, Kottayam was marked as Ext.X1. The learned tribunal awarded total compensation of 58,550/- with 7%₹ interest from the date of petition till realisation with cost of ₹ 2000/-. Being aggrieved by that, the Insurance Company preferred this appeal.

¶26

The learned counsel relied on Ext.A6, the copy of the policy issued to the vehicle and contended that it is only an act only policy. He also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh

¶27

&others [2006(4) SCC 404].

¶28

The liability of the insurance company, which is specifically stated u/s.147of the M.V. Act reads as follows:

¶29

M.A.C.A.No.1187/2008

¶30

¶31

“147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which(a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and

¶32

(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;

¶33

(ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place: Provided that a policy shall not be required-

¶34

(i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death o, or bodily injury to, any such employee-

¶35

(a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or

¶36

(b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or

¶37

¶38

(ii) to cover any contractual liability.

¶39

Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or

¶40

M.A.C.A.No.1187/2008 4

¶41

omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place.

¶42

Besides the above statutory liability, additional

¶43

cover can be provided by paying an extra premium for different IMT endorsements. When that Section of the Policy clearly expresses that for indemnifying the insured against sums payable by him to any person including occupants carried in the vehicle, the insurer cannot contend that any particular endorsement was required for that liability. I have perused Ext.A6 policy issued by the appellant, in which personal accident, 50,000/- each for₹ two passengers were covered in the policy and additional premium of 75/- was collected for personal accident.₹ When Ext.A6 policy is covered to compensate the pillion rider also, there is no meaning in disallowing the claim of the victims.

¶44

This Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd v.

¶45

Hydrose [2008(3) KLT 778] held that “here it is not an Act only policy. It is a “B” policy and S.11(1) (i) of the conditions

¶46

M.A.C.A.No.1187/2008 5

¶47

attached to the policy issued in this case shows that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, gratuitous occupants of the vehicle are covered. Insurer has undertaken liability in respect of death or bodily injuries to any person including a person conveyed in or on the motor cycle provided such person is not carried for hire or reward. Here no limitation of liability is mentioned in the Schedule. In fact, specific coverage is provided for the risk of gratuitous passenger as per the conditions of policy regarding the coverage of risk due to the death or bodily injury to any person, provided, the person is not carried for hire or reward. In these circumstances, the insurance company has by contract agreed to indemnify the insured of the risk of gratuitous passenger in the motor cycle.”

¶48

Therefore, the conditions of the policy covered the risk of the victim due to the bodily injuries sustained to him in a motor accident as a pillion rider. It is found that the insurance company as per Ext.A6 policy contracted to

¶49

M.A.C.A.No.1187/2008

¶50

¶51

indemnify the insured of the risk of the pillion rider in a motor cycle. In the circumstances, the tribunal has correctly fastened the liability upon the insurance company. In a road accident, the injured is entitled to get just compensation for

¶52

the injury sustained to him. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed accordingly.

¶53

P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.

¶54

acd

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. C.R.Kishoremon and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. C.R.Kishoremon and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Metro Trading Company Vs Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer Palakkad

Abdul Rasheed Vs Kabeer

Rahim Vs Abdul Karim

Rajan Pillai Vs Sanilkumar R

Raveendran Vs P.a.Sajeer

George Vs the Manager