This appeal by the insurer against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award was dismissed for default due to the appellant's failure to appear in court. The judgment also clarifies that the cited Supreme Court precedent distinguishes from the current facts regarding policy coverage under Section 163-A.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2012/30TH SRAVANA 1934
MACA.No. 1586 of 2009 ( )
(AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV.184/2003 of M.A.C.T.,NEYYATTINKARA)
APPELLANT(S)/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE OMANA BUILDING, PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI-35.
BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT RESPECTIVELY:
BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN BY ADV. SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH BY ADV. SRI.SAIJO HASSAN BY ADV. SRI.A.S.SABU BY ADV. SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN BY ADV. SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The case was taken up for hearing on 11.6.12, there is no representation for the appellant. Therefore, the case was adjourned after six weeks. Again the matter was taken up on 8.8.2012. On that day also neither the appellant nor his counsel are present. Again this Court adjourned the matter to 16.8.12. On that day also there is no representation. Therefore, the matter was posted again on today. Today also there is no representation. Hence, the appeal stand dismissed for default.
Sd/HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE
21.8.12
True copy
P.A. To Judge
P.D. RAJAN, J.
------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.1586 of 2009
Dated this the 15th day of September , 2017
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award in O.P.(M.V.) No.184 of 2003 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara by the insurer. The 1st respondent's (injured) case is that on 31.12.2002 at 11.30 a.m., while he was riding a motor cycle No.KL-01/X-571, the vehicle skid and fell into a gutter and thereby he sustained serious injuries. He preferred the above claim petition under Sec.163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.31,519/(Rupees thirty one thousand five hundred and nineteen only) with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Being aggrieved by that, the insurer preferred this appeal.
M.A.C.A. No.1586 of 2009 2
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh and Others [ 2006 (4) SCC 404] and contended that the appellant has no liability to indemnify the owner.
There is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/- P.D. RAJAN,
JUDGE
/ True Copy / P.A. To Judge
NS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act based on a comprehensive package policy.
Whether the decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh is applicable to the facts of the present case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh and OthersDistinguished¶29
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh and Others [ 2006 (4) SCC 404] · Who else cites this
United India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Baby @ Siby and OthersFollowed¶30
United India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Baby @ Siby and Others [2010 KHC 6216]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
VINCENT
THANKACHAN
P.D. RAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
