Partly allowed

The Director General of Police, Kerala v. Pradeep Kumar

Kerala HC11 Dec 2018MACA/71/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the insurer to pay compensation to injured police officers despite the exclusion in an act-only policy. It held the insurer must pay first then recover from the owner, citing Supreme Court precedents. The Court also ordered the State to ensure all government vehicles carry comprehensive insurance for officers in the future.

What did the court decide?

Insurer directed to pay award then recover from owner in 30 days; State ordered to provide comprehensive insurance for government vehicles.

The Director General of Police, Kerala Vs Pradeep Kumar — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

'C.R.'

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶5

TUESDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶6

MACA.NO. 3286 OF 2014

¶7

AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.848/2006 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PUNALUR DATED 30-09-2013

¶8

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IN O.P.(M.V.) :

¶9

1 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

2 THE DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER, KOLLAM.

¶11

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SRI.M.V.ANANDAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NO.1

¶13

IN O.P.(M.V.) :

¶14

1 JOSEPH, S/O DANIEL, THAZHEPURAYIL VEEDU, PUTHAR, CHANNAPPETTA P.O., ALAYAMON, PIN-691311.

¶15

2 SIVAKUMAR, S/O.BHASKARAN, VELAYIL VEEDU, ANCHAL,PIN-691306.

¶16

ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 IMPLEADED.

¶17

STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE 3 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶18

STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY 4 TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

(ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29/10/2018 IN IA NO.3/2018 AND IA NO.4/2018).

¶20

MACA.NO. 3286 OF 2014 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.127 OF 2018 & 2 MACA.NO. 71 OF 2015 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.126 OF 2018

¶21

BY ADVS. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SMT.K.M.AMINABEEVI SRI.ESM.KABEER

¶22

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION NO.127/2018 HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2018 ALONG WITH M.A.C.A. NO.71 OF 2015 AND CROSS OBJECTION NO.126 OF 2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

MACA.NO. 3286 OF 2014 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.127 OF 2018 & 3 MACA.NO. 71 OF 2015 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.126 OF 2018

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶27

TUESDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶28

CO.NO. 127 OF 2018 IN MACA. 3286/2014

¶29

AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.848/2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PUNALUR DATED 30-09-2013

¶30

APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN THE MACA/

¶31

PETITIONER IN THE O.P.(M.V) :

¶32

JOSEPH, S/O.DANIEL, THAZHEPURAYIL VEEDU, PUTHUR, CHANNAPPETTA P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 311.

¶33

BY ADVS. SRI.B.MOHANLAL

¶34

SMT. PREETHA P.S.

¶35

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/2ND RESPONDENT IN THE MACA/

¶36

RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN O.P.(M.V.) :

¶37

1 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

¶38

KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶39

2 THE DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶40

3 SRI. SIVAKUMAR, S/O.BHASKARAN, VILAYIL VEEDU, ANCHAL, KOLLAM-691 306.

¶41

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.M.V.ANANDAN BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER

¶42

THIS CROSS OBJECTION IN MACA NO.3286/2014 HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH MACA.NO.71 OF 2015 AND CROSS OBJECTION NO.126 OF 2018. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶43

MACA.NO. 3286 OF 2014 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.127 OF 2018 & 4 MACA.NO. 71 OF 2015 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.126 OF 2018

¶44

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶45

PRESENT

¶46

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶47

TUESDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶48

MACA.NO. 71 OF 2015

¶49

AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.850/2006 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PUNALUR DATED 30-09-2013

¶50

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN O.P.(M.V.) :

¶51

1 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶52

2 THE DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER KOLLAM.

¶53

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.M.V.ANANDAN

¶54

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER &

¶55

RESPONDENT NO.1 IN O.P.(M.V.) :

¶56

1 PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, VADAKKE VEEDU, PERUMKULOM, KALAYAPURAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, PIN - 691 560.

¶57

2 SIVAKUMAR, S/O. BHASKARAN, VILAYIL VEEDU, ANCHAL, PIN - 691 306.

¶58

ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 IMPLEADED.

¶59

3 STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶60

MACA.NO. 3286 OF 2014 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.127 OF 2018 & 5 MACA.NO. 71 OF 2015 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.126 OF 2018

¶61

4 STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶62

(ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29/10/2018 IN IA NO.5/2018 AND IA NO.6/2018)

¶63

BY ADVS. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SMT.K.M.AMINABEEVI SRI.ESM.KABEER

¶64

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION NO.126/2018 HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH M.A.C.A. NO.3286 OF 2014 AND CROSS OBJECTION NO.127 OF 2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶65

MACA.NO. 3286 OF 2014 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.127 OF 2018 & 6 MACA.NO. 71 OF 2015 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.126 OF 2018

¶66

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶67

PRESENT

¶68

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶69

TUESDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶70

CO.NO. 126 OF 2018 IN MACA. 71/2015

¶71

AGAINST THE AWARD IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.850/2006 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PUNALUR DATED 30-09-2013

¶72

APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN THE M.A.C.A/ PETITIONER IN THE O.P.(M.V.):

¶73

PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR,

¶74

VADAKKE VEEDU, PERUMKULAM, KALAYAPURAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 560.

¶75

BY ADVS. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SMT. PREETHA P.S.

¶76

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/2ND RESPONDENT IN THE MACA/ RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN O.P.(M.V.) :

¶77

1 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶78

2 THE DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER, KOLLAM, PIN-691001.

¶79

3 SRI.SIVAKUMAR, S/O BHASKARAN, VILAYIL VEEDU, ANCHAL, KOLLAM-691306.

¶80

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.M.V.ANANDAN BY ADV. SRI.E.S.MOHAMED KABIR

¶81

THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL IN MACA NO.71/2014 HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2018, ALONG WITH MACA.NO.3286 OF 2014 AND CROSS OBJECTION NO.127 OF 2018. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶82

MACA.NO. 3286 OF 2014 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.127 OF 2018 & 7 MACA.NO. 71 OF 2015 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.126 OF 2018

¶83

'C.R.'

¶84

J U D G M E N T

¶85

These appeals are preferred against the common award in O.P.(M.V.) Nos.848 of 2006 and 850 of 2006 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur by the owner and insurer of the police jeep. Two Civil Police officers sustained injuries in a motor accident while conducting patrol duty in a Police jeep and they preferred the above claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') awarded compensation of Rs.46,470/- (Rupees Forty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy only) in O.P.(M.V.) No.848 of 2006 and Rs.96,435/- (Rupees Ninety Six Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Five only) in O.P.(M.V.) No.850 of 2006 and directed the insurer to satisfy the award. Being aggrieved by that, the owner and insurer preferred M.A.C.A. No.3286 of 2014

¶86

MACA.NO. 3286 OF 2014 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.127 OF 2018 & 8 MACA.NO. 71 OF 2015 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.126 OF 2018

¶87

against O.P.(M.V.) No.848 of 2006 and M.A.C.A No.71 of 2015

¶88

against O.P.(M.V.) No.850 of 2006 before this Court.

¶89

The relevant facts alleged by the claimants in the lower court are that on 18.07.2006 at 2.45 a.m., petitioners were conducting patrol duty with CI of Police, Kadakkal in a police jeep KL-01/AD-4866, when they reached near NSS College, Nilamel, the driver of the jeep lost his control and the police jeep hit against a culvert on the left side of the road. As a result, the Police officers travelling in the jeep sustained serious injuries, immediately they were removed to hospital. The accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver. The driver and owner did not contest the matter in the lower court. The insurer admitted the insurance of the vehicle, but disputed the liability and contended that they had issued only an act only policy and no insurance coverage for Police officers travelling in a police jeep. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence of Exts.A1 to A15.

¶90

MACA.NO. 3286 OF 2014 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.127 OF 2018 & 9 MACA.NO. 71 OF 2015 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.126 OF 2018

¶91

The injured preferred Cross Objection No.127 of 2018 in M.A.C.A. No.3286 of 2014 and Cross Objection No.126 of 2018 in M.A.C.A No.71 of 2015 and contended that meagre amount was awarded towards pain and sufferings, loss of amenities, extra nourishment and for permanent disability. Therefore, they are entitled to get enhanced compensation.

¶92

The learned Public Prosecutor who is appearing for the appellants submitted that as per the policy, no insurance coverage is given to the police officers travelling in the offending vehicle. As part of official duty, they are bound to travel in police vehicles and other government vehicles, but the State Insurance Department had issued only act only insurance policy to Government vehicles in the State and their liability is up to the terms and conditions of the policy.

¶93

Before discussing the above point, I have considered whether the Cross Objectors in C.O. No.126 of 2018 and C.O. No.127 of 2018 are entitled to get enhanced compensation. The Cross Objector in C.O. No.127 of 2018

¶94

MACA.NO. 3286 OF 2014 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.127 OF 2018 & 10 MACA.NO. 71 OF 2015 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.126 OF 2018

¶95

contended that he sustained fracture right parietal bone. Immediately after the accident, he was treated at KIMS Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram in the Neurological department. Exts.A6, A7 and A8 are medical documents issued from KIMS hospital, Thiruvananthapuram which corroborate his contention. The injured is entitled to get just amount as compensation. The cross objector sustained a displaced fracture to right paretal bone. While awarding compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account. The award must reflect that different circumstances have been taken into consideration. After considering the nature of injury and treatment in this case, following additional amount is awarded as enhanced compensation. For pain and suffering Rs.15,000/-, loss of amenities Rs.10,000/and for extra nourishment Rs.2,000/-. No further increase is

¶96

necessary towards other heads. The total enhanced compensation is Rs.27,000/-.

¶97

MACA.NO. 3286 OF 2014 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.127 OF 2018 & 11 MACA.NO. 71 OF 2015 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.126 OF 2018

¶98

The Cross Objector in C.O. No.126 of 2018 sustained

¶99

fracture to left acetabulum and he is having 7% permanent disability. Exts.A13 and A15 medical documents corroborate this aspect. Hence, the following additional amounts are awarded as enhanced compensation. For pain and suffering Rs.10,000/-, loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- and for extra nourishment Rs.2,000/- are awarded. The total enhanced compensation is Rs.22,000/-. Hence, the Cross Objector in M.A.C.A No.3286 of 2014 is entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.27,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand only) in addition to the award amount of Rs.46,470/- and Cross Objector in M.A.C.A No.71/2015, is entitled to get enhanced compensation of Rs.22,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand only) in addition to the award amount of Rs.96,435/-.

¶100

Now the question arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the cross objectors are entitled for an order against the insurer of the vehicle to pay the award amount and then to recover the said amount from the owner

¶101

MACA.NO. 3286 OF 2014 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.127 OF 2018 & 12 MACA.NO. 71 OF 2015 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.126 OF 2018

¶102

of the vehicle. Sec.147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads

¶103

as follows:

¶104

“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-

¶105

(a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and

¶106

(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)-

¶107

(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;

¶108

(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:

¶109

provided that a policy shall not be required-

¶110

(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 of, or bodily injury to, any such employee,-

¶111

(a) engaged in driving the vehicle or

¶112

MACA.NO. 3286 OF 2014 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.127 OF 2018 & 13 MACA.NO. 71 OF 2015 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.126 OF 2018

¶113

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

¶114

¶115

(ii) to cover any contractual liability.

¶116

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

¶117

(2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely:-

¶118

(a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred;

¶119

(b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand:

¶120

Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier.

¶121

(3) A policy shall be of no effect for the purposes of this

¶122

MACA.NO. 3286 OF 2014 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.127 OF 2018 & 14 MACA.NO. 71 OF 2015 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.126 OF 2018

¶123

Chapter unless and until there is issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate of insurance in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars of any condition subject to which the policy is issued and of any other prescribed matters; and different forms, particulars and matters may be prescribed in different cases.

¶124

(4) Where a cover note issued by the insurer under the provisions of this Chapter or the rules made thereunder is not followed by a policy of insurance within the prescribed time, the insurer shall, within seven days of the expiry of the period of the validity of the cover note, notify the fact to the registering authority in whose records the vehicle to which the cover note relates has been registered or to such other authority as the State Government may prescribe.

¶125

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons.”

¶126

Keeping in view the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any person travelling in that vehicle. The meaning of the words 'any person' under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act must be attributed

¶127

MACA.NO. 3286 OF 2014 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.127 OF 2018 & 15 MACA.NO. 71 OF 2015 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.126 OF 2018

¶128

having regard to the context in which they have been used i.e., 'a third party'. Moreover, sub-clause (i) of Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 speaks of liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle in respect of death or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. But sub-clause (ii) thereof deals with liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. This shows that the owner of a private vehicle must pay premium for covering the risks of the passengers in that vehicle other than the above statutory liability. If a liability other than the limited liability provided for under the Act is to be honoured by the insurer under an insurance policy, provided the owner of the vehicle has to pay additional premium in that policy. Therefore, it is found that, Section 147 of the 1988 Act, inter alia, prescribes compulsory

¶129

MACA.NO. 3286 OF 2014 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.127 OF 2018 & 16 MACA.NO. 71 OF 2015 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.126 OF 2018

¶130

coverage against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of 'public service vehicle'. Proviso appended thereto categorically states that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in a goods vehicle would be limited to the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act. In short mere existence of a policy is not a ground to cover unlimited coverage for the insurance company. It depends upon the nature of contract entered into between the insurer and insured.

¶131

In this case, the insurer issued only an act only policy and the insured permitted the Police officers to travel in that vehicle, and the vehicle met with an accident, then the question is who will pay compensation to such Police officers. The insurance companies are issuing various types of policies according to an agreement entered into between the insurer and insured. If a passenger is not covered as per the policy issued to a vehicle, the insurer calls him as a gratuitous

¶132

MACA.NO. 3286 OF 2014 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.127 OF 2018 & 17 MACA.NO. 71 OF 2015 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.126 OF 2018

¶133

passenger or a person travelling without insurance coverage. The issue in this case is that, when Government officials are travelling in Government vehicle as part of their official duty, whether the Government has a duty to take insurance policy to such officers. The Director General of Police (State Police Chief) took a contention that they are not responsible for paying compensation to the victims since no policy coverage. The 1^st appellant took insurance policy from the District Insurance Office, Kollam for 3^rd parties alone and no insurance coverage is given to the Police officers travelling in a Police jeep. In the additional written statement, the insurer contended that they issued an act only policy and no coverage for the police officers travelling in a Police jeep. In the circumstance, the Cross Objector impleaded the Chief Secretary and the Home Secretary as additional respondents to explain the liability of the Government in this matter. The Director General of Police explained that no comprehensive or package policy has been taken for the Police vehicles.

¶134

MACA.NO. 3286 OF 2014 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.127 OF 2018 & 18 MACA.NO. 71 OF 2015 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.126 OF 2018

¶135

In the meantime, the learned counsel appearing for

¶136

the appellants produced a letter from the Principal Secretary, Finance Department addressed to the Additional Advocate General which was marked as Ext.C1, in which it is stated as follows:

¶137

“The Director, Kerala State Insurance Department has furnished a proposal relating to insurance for the vehicles owned by the Government Departments. It consists of 'Act only Policy' with legal liability cover and 'Comprehensive Insurance Policy'. As per the proposal from the Insurance Director and the information from your letter it is understood that the vehicle with the insurance 'Act only Policy' does not insure the employees traveling in the vehicle. Hence a direction will be given to the Insurance Director that hereafter in all cases of renewal of vehicle insurance and providing of new vehicle insurance, coverage would be 'Comprehensive Insurance Policy' or 'Act only Policy' with legal liability cover.”

¶138

It is clear from Ext.C1 letter issued from the Principal Secretary (Finance), Government of Kerala, that in case of renewal of policy, they will give direction to the insurance Director to issue package or comprehensive insurance policy or Act only Policy cover with legal liability to the Government

¶139

MACA.NO. 3286 OF 2014 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.127 OF 2018 & 19 MACA.NO. 71 OF 2015 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.126 OF 2018

¶140

vehicles. The provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is applicable to all motor vehicles in the State and this Court hereby direct that the owner of the Government vehicle shall take comprehensive insurance policy to their vehicles with policy coverage to their officers travelling in government vehicles. The Finance Secretary, Government of Kerala assured that he will give direction to all department heads to take Comprehensive or Package Policy to Government vehicles in which officers are travelling and further discussion on that point is not necessary.

¶141

Apex Court in Manura Khatun and Others v. Rajesh Kumar Singh And Others [(2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 796] held that:

¶142

The facts of the case at hand are somewhat identical to the facts of the case mentioned supra because here also we find that the deceased were found travelling as “gratuitous passengers” in the offending vehicle and it was for this reason, the insurance companies were exonerated. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul [(2013) 2 SCC 41] case also having held that the victim was

¶143

MACA.NO. 3286 OF 2014 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.127 OF 2018 & 20 MACA.NO. 71 OF 2015 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.126 OF 2018

¶144

“gratuitous passenger”, this Court issued directions against the insurer of the offending vehicle to first satisfy the awarded sum and then to recover the same from the insured in the same proceedings.

¶145

¶146

In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the direction to United India Insurance Co. Ltd (Respondent 3)- they being the insurer of the offending vehicle which was found involved in causing accident due to negligence of its driver needs to be issued directing them (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent 3) to first pay the awarded sum to the appellants (claimants) and then to recover the paid awarded sum from the owner of the offending vehicle (Tata Sumo) Respondent 1 in execution proceedings arising in this very case as per the law laid down in para 26 of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul [(2013) 2 SCC 41] quoted supra.

¶147

Accordingly, the appeals succeed and are allowed. Impugned order is modified to the extent that Respondent 3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is accordingly directed to pay the awarded sum to the appellants (claimants). Thereafter Respondent 3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. would be entitled to recover the entire paid awarded sum from the owner (insured) of the offending vehicle (Tata Sumo) Respondent 1 in these very proceedings by filing execution application against the insured.

¶148

MACA.NO. 3286 OF 2014 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.127 OF 2018 & 21 MACA.NO. 71 OF 2015 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.126 OF 2018

¶149

As per evidence, it is true that the Government vehicle in

¶150

this case was issued only an act only policy and it does not cover the employees travelling in the Government vehicle. Even then, the insurer cannot avoid its liability in view of the decision in Manura Khatun's case (Supra), the State Insurance Department, the insurer of the offending police jeep shall pay the award of compensation to the victims then to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. In the circumstance, the insurer is directed to first pay the amount of compensation to the victims and then to recover the amount from the insured within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which it will carry 12% interest from the date of default.

¶151

The Principal Secretary, Finance Department assured that he will give instructions to the Insurance Director hereafter in all cases of renewal of insurance of government vehicle to take insurance policy with comprehensive coverage policy or package policy with legal liability coverage. There

¶152

MACA.NO. 3286 OF 2014 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.127 OF 2018 & 22 MACA.NO. 71 OF 2015 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.126 OF 2018

¶153

are hundreds of police vehicles and government vehicles plying in the State of Kerala, the officers who are travelling in those vehicles are not having sufficient insurance coverage. Hence, the Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala is directed to give instructions to the Finance Secretary to include sufficient amount in the State budget and disburse it to the concerned Government Departments to take package policy and give instructions to such departments including the Registrar, High Court of Kerala to take package insurance policy to the Government vehicles in which Government officers are travelling. This includes the vehicles of the Chief Secretary, the Government Secretaries, Head of Department and other officers. The State Transport Commissioner shall ensure that this direction is properly complied with and give proper instructions to the head of the department to take package insurance policy at the time of its renewal of policy to the above said Government vehicles. The benevolent provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have to be obeyed

¶154

MACA.NO. 3286 OF 2014 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.127 OF 2018 & 23 MACA.NO. 71 OF 2015 & CROSS OBJECTION NO.126 OF 2018

¶155

by the Government of Kerala while using their vehicles in

¶156

public place. In the circumstances, the Registrar General, High Court of Kerala is directed to issue a copy of the judgment to The Chief Secretary (R4), Government of Kerala who shall forward this judgment to the Heads of the Department for necessary action and for strict compliance. The Registrar General is directed to take comprehensive/package policy to the staff cars used by the Judges, High Court of Kerala at the time of renewal of its policy and issue a copy of the judgment to all the District and Sessions Judges of the State for information and compliance.

¶157

These appeals and cross objections are disposed of with the above direction.

¶158

Sd/-

¶159

P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE

¶160

NS/bng

¶161

/True Copy/ P.A. To Judge

The Director General of Police, Kerala v. Pradeep Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director General of Police, Kerala v. Pradeep Kumar

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

Dr. Sanila Daniel Vs T.C. George

Hadson Stephen Vs Vipin Chand

Hadson Stephen Vs Vipin Chand

Sivadas Alias Sivadasan Vs Radhakrishnan

The Director General of Police Vs Joseph

Syamalakumari Vs Prakash Unnithan