Allowed

M/S. United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Babu Minnikkaran

Kerala HC6 Jul 2021MACA/3122/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal filed by the insurance company against an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Court held that since the insured failed to produce evidence of a valid insurance policy for the vehicle at the time of the accident, the insurance company is absolved from liability, and the award is payable by the vehicle owner personally.

What did the court decide?

The insurance company is absolved from liability; the award is to be paid by the vehicle owners jointly and severally.

M/S. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Babu… — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1943

¶5

MACA NO. 3122 OF 2017

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 23.11.2016 IN OPMV 663/2015 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT

¶7

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , TALIPARAMBA

¶8

APPELLANT:3RD RESPONDENT

¶9

M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD NO.504, 1ST FLOOR, THARA BUILDING, NEARBUS STAND, NILESHWAR, KASARGOD DIST.671314.

¶10

BY ADV SRI.S.ARUN RAJ

¶11

RESPONDENTS:1ST PETITIONER & 1ST & 2ND RESPONDENTS

¶12

1 BABU MINNIKKARAN S/O KANNAN, NORTH MANAKKAD, P.O.KARIVELLUR, KANNUR DISTRICT670521.

¶13

2 PARAMBATH MUHAMMED MANZOOR S/O ABOOBACKER, HAJIRA MANZIL, THAIKKADAPPURAM PO, NILESHWAR, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671314.

¶14

3 KABEER V.P S/O JAMEELA, JAMEELA HOUSE, TRIKARIPUR PO, CHANDERA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671310.

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.BINU FOR R1 SRI.T.MADHU FOR R3 SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI FOR R3 SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL FOR R1

¶16

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

A.BADHARUDEEN, J.

¶18

M.A.C.A.No.3122 of 2017

¶19

Dated this the 6^th day of July, 2021

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal arises out of award dated 23.11.2016 in O.P(MV)

¶22

No.663/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Taliparamba. The appellant herein is the original 3^rd respondent insurance company.

¶23

Short facts of the case :

¶24

On 09.02.2014 at about 7.00 p.m, the petitioner in O.P(MV) was

¶25

travelling in a motorcycle from Karivellur to Onakkunnu. When the petitioner reached in front of Supplyco Co-operative Store, the 1^st respondent drove the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-14-E-6002 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and hit the petitioner. Due to the hitting, the petitioner sustained severe injury. The petitioner is a Weaving Teacher and getting Rs.8,500/- per month. He claimed Rs.3,90,000/towards compensation.

¶26

In fact, the learned counsel for the appellant/3^rd respondent

¶27

M.A.C.A.No.3122 of 2017 3

¶28

submitted that there was no valid policy at the time of accident which occurred on 09.02.2014. But the Tribunal dispelled its contention after highlighting the difference in the number of policy issued. The policy bearing new No.1020023111 P 144119365 covering the period between 00 hrs on 23.6.2011 to midnight of 22.6.2012 as well as policy bearing No.102081311100000616 issued prior to assignment of the new number referred in the police records also produced before this Court. It is not in dispute that the accident was on 9.2.2014. Going by the policy numbers referred above, it could be seen that the 3^rd respondent/appellant issued policy during the period between 23.6.2011 to 22.06.2012. Thereafter, no policy was issued is the contention raised by the appellant/insurance company.

¶29

Though the learned counsel for the insured, the owner of the vehicle, submitted that there was a valid policy, he miserably failed to produce the same or to suggest the number of policy either before the Tribunal or before this Court.

¶30

Coming to the short dispute, the liability of the insurance company is in question.

¶31

M.A.C.A.No.3122 of 2017 4

¶32

Here the insurance company denied policy to the offending vehicle at the time of accident. The owner of the vehicle failed to establish any valid policy at the time of accident. Thus there is no question of fastening liability on the insurance company and the company is liable to be exonerated from the liability. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal negativing the contention of the insurance company is found to be erroneous. Therefore, the same is to be interfered with.

¶33

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be paid by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally, as ordered

¶34

by the Tribunal and the appellant/3^rd respondent insurance company is absolved from liability.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE)

¶37

rtr/

M/S. United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Babu Minnikkaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Babu Minnikkaran

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

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Afreman

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

Sofiya Vs Rejila v.

Mamatha R Shetty Vs Abdul Nazir

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Lltd. Vs Aboobacker

Nalini Sasidharan @ P.T.Nalini Vs Narayana Pillai