Allowed

Narasimha B. v. Narayana Ballal

Kerala HC16 Oct 2018MACA/493/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an appeal against a tribunal order that had directed motorcyclist to pay compensation excluding the insurance company. Relying on IRDA circulars and Supreme Court law, the court held the insurer liable under a package policy and awarded compensation to the pillion rider.

What did the court decide?

The 3rd respondent Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award amount fixed by the Tribunal within one month.

Narasimha B. Vs Narayana Ballal — 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 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 24TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

MACA.No. 493 of 2007

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 267/2004 of D.C. & SESSIONS & MACT,KASARAGOD DATED 31-08-2006

¶7

APPELLANT:

¶8

1 NARASIMHA B., DADDA VEEDU, POST CHEROOR, CHENGALA VILLAGE AND, KASARGOD TALUK.

¶9

2 C.BALAKRISHNA BALLAL SO LATE BANGAR BALLAL, VALIYA VEEDU, CHEROOR, CHEROOR POST,, CHENGALA VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH

¶11

SMT.V.SETHUKUTTY AMMA

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 NARAYANA BALLAL,S/O C.H.RAMACHANDRA BALLAL, VALIYA VEEDU,, CHEROOR, CHEROOR POST, CHENGALA VILLAGE,, KASARGOD TALUK.

¶14

**2 C.H.RAMACHANDRA BALLAL AGED 71 YEARS S/O LATE KRISHNA BALLAL, VALIYA VEEDU,, CHEROOR, CHEROOR POST, CHENGALA VILLAGE,, KASARGOD TALUK. [deleted as per order dt.16.10.2018 in I.A. No.1/18]

¶15

3 THE BRANCH MANAGER THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, M.G.ROAD, KASARGOD.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN

¶17

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The rider and owner of the motor cycle bearing No. KL 14D 5364 are before this Court, being aggrieved of

¶20

MACA.No. 493 of 2007

¶21

¶22

the verdict passed by the Tribunal absolving Insurance

¶23

Company from the liability in respect of the injuries caused to the pillion rider.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as

¶25

well as Sri. Ganappan, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶26

The claimant was traveling as a pillion rider on

¶27

a motor cycle owned by the second respondent before the Tribunal and ridden by the first respondent. While so, the rider lost the control on applying the brakes suddenly; as a result of which, the pillion rider was thrown down on the road causing serious injuries, which was sought to be compensated by filing the claim petition.

¶28

The matter was contested by the Insurance

¶29

company on quantum and on the question of negligence of the rider, however admitting the policy. Based on the materials on record, the Tribunal found that the accident was because of the negligence on the part of

¶30

the rider of the motor cycle. The total compensation payable was fixed as Rs.2,83,400/-, which was ordered to

¶31

MACA.No. 493 of 2007

¶32

¶33

be satisfied with interest @ 9%. However observing that the policy issued by the 3^rd respondent Insurance company did not provide for coverage of the pillion rider, the owner and rider of the motor cycle were directed to satisfy the compensation, which is sought to be interdicted in this appeal.

¶34

When the matter is taken up for consideration Sri. Ganappan, the learned counsel for the Insurance company fairly conceded that the policy issued is a 'package policy' and by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court, this Court and also by virtue of the Circulars issued by the IRDA on the point, liability is to be satisfied by the Insurance company.

¶35

In the said circumstances, this Court does not require any second thought to hold that the liability now sought to be mulcted upon the shoulders of the owner and rider of the motorcycle has to be shifted to the shoulders of the 3^rd respondent Insurance Company. It is ordered accordingly. The 3^rd respondent Insurance company is directed to satisfy the award amount at the earliest, at any rate, within one month from the date of

¶36

MACA.No. 493 of 2007

¶37

¶38

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶39

The Appeal stands disposed of.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

kmd

Narasimha B. v. Narayana Ballal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narasimha B. v. Narayana Ballal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rosamma & Others Vs Eliyamma & Others

Ananthakrishnan Vs Lishil A.M.

Muhammed Manzoor Vs S.Rajan and Another

P.M.Sunny Vs Sadanandan

Raju Vs Jayakumar P.

Prabhakaran Vs Margret