The High Court set aside the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award to the extent it directed the insurance company to pay. Remanded the matter for fresh consideration on evidence regarding the policy type and coverage scope.
Award setting aside insurer liability remanded to Tribunal for fresh consideration on issue of policy coverage.
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 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1943
MACA NO. 2553 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 462/2005 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV/ IV ADDL. M.A.C.T., PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV SRI.LAL GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
1 SUNIL
S/O. RAMAN, KOCHUTHUNDU VEEDU, KONATH MURUPPEL, AICKADU, KODUMON, PATHANAMTHITTA-691555.
2 P.D. KOSHY SHALOM HOUSE, KODUMON P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA - 691 555.
3 ULLAS CHAVARUTHUNDIL VEEDU, AICKADU, KODUMON, PATHANAMTHITTA - 691 555.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY-R1 SMT.V.SREEJA SMT.SANJANA R.NAIR
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA 2553/2015
2
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the third respondent/insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. The first respondent herein is the claimant who was a pillion rider on the scooter ridden by the third respondent and owned by the second respondent. The parties in this appeal are referred to as per the status in the claim petition.
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V Act, for short) claiming compensation for the injuries he sustained in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 4.7.2004. According to the claimant, he was a pillion rider on the scooter bearing Reg.No.KL-03/E-6925 owned by first respondent and due to the negligent riding of the scooter by the second respondent, he fell down and sustained injuries. He claimed an amount of Rs.2,27,000/- as compensation.
MACA 2553/2015
3
statement admitting that the vehicle was covered by a valid insurance policy as on the date of the accident; however, the company is not liable to pay any amount as compensation as the policy is an 'act only policy'
that does not require to cover a pillion rider. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the petitioner. No documents were marked on the side of the respondents.
occurred due to the negligent riding of the scooter by the second respondent and that, since there is a valid insurance policy in respect of
the scooter and no violation of the policy condition was proved, the claimant would be entitled to recover the compensation from the respondents jointly and severally. An amount of Rs.3,36,800/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of original petition till realization with proportionate cost was awarded as compensation to the claimant. The 3rd respondent insurance company was directed to satisfy the award. Challenging the award, the insurance company is in appeal.
MACA 2553/2015
4
and Sri.Manoj Ramaswamy, the learned counsel for the first respondent.
respect of the scooter involved in the accident is only an 'act only
policy' and that does not cover the claimant who was the pillion rider.
MACA 2553/2015
5
The appellant also relies on the decision of this Court in New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Daisy Paul and another [2021 (2) KHC 449] wherein this Court held that the insurance company cannot be directed
to pay compensation to a gratuitous passenger in a vehicle covered by a
statutory policy.
No. 3116 of 2015 filed by the appellant to accept Annexure A1 copy of the policy . The owner and rider of the Scooter remained exparte before
MACA 2553/2015
6
the Tribunal. Before this Court also, though they accepted notice, they have not entered appearance.
and therefore, he could not produce the same before the Tribunal. The owner of the Scooter remained exparte. The insurance company did not
produce the policy before the Tribunal though they took a contention in the written statement that the policy is an 'act only policy' that does not require to cover a pillion rider. The copy of the policy is produced before this Court and the same was accepted as additional evidence in the appeal. Though it is shown in the copy of the policy that it is an 'act only policy', it is seen that certain additional amounts are paid other than the third party basic premium. The details cannot be deciphered due to poor print. If the policy is an 'act only policy', then the appellant cannot be directed to satisfy the award. At the same time, if the insured has paid additional premium, the insurance company will be liable to satisfy the award to the extent covered by such additional premium as shown in the schedule of premium. Since the policy was not produced
MACA 2553/2015
7
before the Tribunal by the owner of the vehicle or by the insurer, the question as to whether liability is limited by the terms of the policy could not be decided by the Tribunal. Therefore, the question as to whether the policy issued in respect of the scooter involved in the accident is an 'act only policy' and whether it covers the claimant who was the pillion rider are matters that requires to be considered by adducing evidence. The question as to who has to satisfy the award and to what extent, will also depend on the said finding.
MACA 2553/2015
8
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. There will be no order as to
costs.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE
spc/
MACA 2553/2015
9
APPENDIX
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURE:
A1:CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an insurance company is liable to satisfy an award for a pillion rider under an alleged 'act only' policy.
Whether evidence regarding the scope of coverage and premiums paid should be adduced to determine insurer liability.
Whether the Tribunal's award directing the insurer to pay compensation should be set aside.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Daisy Paul and anotherReferred¶43
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Daisy Paul and another [2021 (2) KHC 449]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
National Insurance Company Ltd., Pathanamthitta
Sunil
P.D. Koshy
Ullas
Murali Purushothaman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
