Allowed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Afreman

Kerala HC2 Jul 2021MACA/174/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed an appeal by the insurer against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court held that a statutory 'liability only' policy does not cover injuries to a pillion rider, who is considered a gratuitous passenger not covered under Section 147 of the Act. Consequently, the insurer is exonerated from liability.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; insurer exonerated from liability to meet the award amount; compensation to be paid by the vehicle owner.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Afreman — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BADHARUDEEN A.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2 N D DAY OF JULY 2021 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1943

¶5

MACA NO. 174 OF 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 11.03.2014 IN OPMV 777/2005 OF MOTOR

¶7

ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,TRIVANDRUM

¶8

APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT IN THE OP:

¶9

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., ERNAKULAM REGIONAL OFFICE, SARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD,KOCHI – 11.

¶10

BY ADV SRI.S.ARUN RAJ

¶11

RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE OP:

¶12

1 AFREMAN

¶13

S/O.SIMON, KUZHIVILA VEEDU, NEAR VILLAGE OFFICE,KARIPPOOR, KARIPPOOR P.O., NEDUMANGAD TALUK,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 541.

¶14

2 PUSHPARAJ S/O.VINCENT, VS BHAVAN, NELLIKKUZHY, KARIPPOOR P.O., NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541.

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

MACA NO. 174 OF 2015

¶17

¶18

A.BADHARUDEEN, J.

¶19

===========================

¶20

M.A.C.A.No.174 of 2015

¶21

===========================

¶22

Dated this the 2 nd day of July, 2021

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is directed against award dated11.03.2014 in O.P.

¶25

(MV) No.777/2005 on the file MACT, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant is the original 2^nd respondent the insurance company.

¶26

Though the respondents in this appeal were duly served,

¶27

none of them appeared. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records of the Tribunal.

¶28

Brief facts

¶29

On 26.03.2005 the petitioner (in the O.P.) was travelling as

¶30

the pillion rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-01-U-2023 through the Karippoor-Nettirachira public road ridden by the first respondent in the original petition in a rash and negligent manner with reckless speed and when they reached at Karippoor Poovanthala R1 (in the OP) without any reason severed the motorcycle. As a result he was thrown on the road and sustained serious injuries. The Tribunal by the impugned award allowed the petitioner (in the OP) to realise an

¶31

MACA NO. 174 OF 2015

¶32

¶33

of Rs.42,150/- (Rupees forty two thousand one hundred and fifty only) within simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation from respondents (in the OP) jointly and severally. Further the Tribunal directed the insurance company to deposit the same.

¶34

In fact, the challenge in this appeal is confined to direction given against the 2^nd respondent, the insurer to deposit the award amount after holding that R1 and R2 are liable to pay the compensation, ignoring the contention raised by the insurance company that the company was not liable to pay the amount as the policy issued in relation to the vehicle is a statutory policy, which does not cover the risk of pillion rider.

¶35

When the submission was made I have perused Ext.B1 policy with title 'liability only'. Even as per the narration in the award in para No.11, the Tribunal also apprised of this fact though liability was found against R1 and R2. Learned counsel for the insurance company relied on the decision reported in United India Insurance Co.Ltd v. Tilak Singh [2006 (2) KLT 884 (SC)]. In this decision, the Honourable Supreme Court held that the insurance company owed no liability towards the injuries suffered by a pillion rider, as the insurance policy was a statutory one. In another decision of this Court reported

¶36

MACA NO. 174 OF 2015

¶37

¶38

in Mathew Joseph v. Janaki [2007(1) KHC 521], also it was held that gratuitous passengers in transport vehicles including a motor cycle,

¶39

can have coverage only when a comprehensive policy or extended policy as might be possible to be issued, has been availed of by the owner of the vehicle. In fact, all the above decisions followed the ratio of the three Bench decision reported in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Asha Rani & Ors. [2003(1) KLT 165 (SC)].

¶40

In the decision reported in Francis K.T v. Sabu

¶41

Augustine and anr. [2015 (5) KHC 320] a Division Bench of this Court held that comprehensive policy only would cover the risk of a pillion rider. This legal position has been reiterated in the decision reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudhakaran [2008 (2) KLT 936] by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶42

Here, as I have already pointed out, the policy marked as Ext.B1 undoubtedly is a liability only policy’ otherwise known as Act only Policy’ or `statutory policy’, covering the risk of third parties alone.

¶43

In a reasonable decision reported in New India

¶44

Assurance Company Ltd. v. Daisy Paul and anr. [ILR 2021 (2) KLT Kerala 346], a single Bench of this Court after analysing various decisions on this point also expressed the same view. It has been

¶45

MACA NO. 174 OF 2015

¶46

¶47

held there in that a limited liability policy' or a statutory policy' only covers death or bodily injury of a third party falling within the purview of Section 147 of the Act. In such cases, the Insurer is not liable to compensate a `gratuitous passenger' not covered by the policy.

¶48

To sum up, I am inclined to interfere with the award under

¶49

challenge.

¶50

In the result:

¶51

(i) This appeal is allowed and the appellant/2^nd respondent is

¶52

exonerated from the liability to meet the award amount. Consequently, the amount of compensation fixed by the Tribunal as

¶53

per the award shall be paid by the owner of the vehicle, who is the 1^st respondent before the Tribunal.

¶54

(ii) The amount, if any, either deposited or paid by the appellant, shall be reimbursed to the appellant as per law. The appellant is allowed to proceed accordingly.

¶55

(iii) No order as to costs.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶58

scs

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Afreman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Afreman

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

M. Girija Nandan Menon, Vs K.V. James

Elsy Ancil Vs Satheesh Kumar

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ratheesh

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs T.T.Mariyamma

Sofiya Vs Rejila v.

Mamatha R Shetty Vs Abdul Nazir