Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Poulose K.V.

Kerala HC18 Sept 2018MACA/313/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses an appeal filed by an insurance company against a Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Tribunal had granted compensation to the legal heirs of a deceased motorcycle rider killed in a collision. The insurer challenged the award, arguing the deceased was the tortfeasor and claimed amounts were excessive. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in United In

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the Tribulal award granting compensation to the legal heirs stands maintained.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Poulose K.V. — Insurance | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 27TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

MACA.No. 313 of 2012

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 666/2006 of ADDL.D.C. & MACT, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 29-10-2011

¶7

APPELLANT/S:

¶8

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. EDAPPALLY,REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER,RREGIONAL OFFICE,ERNAKULAM NORTH,KOCHI-18.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 POULOSE K.V.

¶12

S/O.K.D.VARGHESE,KALLALY HOUSE,NEAR ST.GEORGE FERONARCHURCH,ANGAMALY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN683572.

¶13

2 TEFFNIN POULOSE

¶14

D/O.POULOSE.K.V,KALLALY HOUSE,NEAR ST.GEORGE FERONARCHURCH,ANGAMALY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-683572.

¶15

3 SHAJI SHAJAHAN S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN,OLIPPARAMBIL VALUIYAVEEDU,RTHALIPADAM KARA,MANNAM.P.O,PARUR VILLAGE,RPIN-686561.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ELIAS

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

M.A.C.A.313/12

JUDGMENT

The award passed by the Tribunal granting a total compensation of 4,36,500/- to the legal heirs of the₹ deceased rider of the motor cycle fixing the liability upon the appellant/insurer of the autorikshaw involved in the accident, is the subject matter of challenge.

¶22

2. The deceased was riding a motor cycle on 30.06.2005 and while so, the motor cycle allegedly hit against a cyclist and thereafter hit against the autorikshaw insured by the appellant, which was coming in

¶23

the opposite side. Because of the serious injuries caused, the rider of the motor cycle succumbed to the injuries and died, which led to the claim petition filed by the parents before the Tribunal.

¶24

3. The appellant Insurance Company contested the matter, contending that the deceased was the tortfeasor and he is not entitled to get any compensation. It was also contended that the amounts claimed under different heads were excessive. The claim petition was preferred under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Monthly

¶25

M.A.C.A.313/12

¶26

¶27

income was reckoned as 3,000/-, considering the date of₹ accident and the age of the deceased was of 19 years, the income reckoned by the Tribunal cannot be stated as

¶28

excessive.

¶29

4. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal under

¶30

various heads are as given below:

¶31

Head of claim	Amount claimed	Amount awarded
	(in rupees)	(in rupees)
Loss of life	3,84,000.00	4,32,000.00
Funeral & allied	5,000.00	2,000.00
expenses
Medical expenses	10,000.00	Nil
Pain and	10,000.00	Nil
sufferings
Loss of estate	5,000.00	2,500.00
Total	4,14,000.00	4,36,500.00

¶32

It is seen that the above amounts are strictly in conformity with the figures given in the second schedule to Section 163-A of the Act and they appear to be quite in order. Obviously, the claim was sought to be resisted with reference to the negligence on the part of the deceased rider. The police had filed charge sheet after

¶33

M.A.C.A.313/12 4

¶34

investigation against the rider of the motor cycle. But the fact remains that the accident was because of collision between the motor cycle ridden by the deceased and also the autorikshaw. Both the vehicles were insured by the very same insurance company, that is the appellant. With regard to the aspect of negligence, particularly with reference to a claim preferred under Section 163-A, the position stands covered by which a ruling rendered by the Apex Court reported in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar & another [2017

¶35

KHC 5644], holding that Insurance Company cannot raise any defence with reference to negligence on the part of the victim. In the above circumstance, the award passed by the Tribunal being in conformity with the decision of the Apex Court in Sunilkumar's case (supra) , no interference is possible. The appeal fails. It stands dismissed accordingly.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Poulose K.V.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Poulose K.V.

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

Jayaprakash Vs Sudhakaran Kartha

Prameela Sunny Vs Mohammed.Y.Safirulla.K.Ias

G.Surendran Pillai Vs Lt.Gen.a.T.Patnaik

Lillykutty Mathai Vs Sirosh K.S.

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Seena

Manaf @ Abdul Manaf Vs K.a.Rasheed and Others