Allowed

P.v.Mathew v. Koona Sudhakar

Kerala HC20 Jul 2022MACA/1566/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the tribunal's order directing the vehicle owner to pay. It held that the insurer must pay the compensation under a comprehensive policy. The insurer must pay the amount within 60 days with interest at 8% for any subsequent delay.

What did the court decide?

First respondent's direction to pay was set aside. Second respondent to pay compensation, interest, and costs within 60 days.

P.v.Mathew Vs Koona Sudhakar — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1944 MACA NO. 1566 OF 2009

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(MV) 1699/2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ERNAKULAM

¶6

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶7

P.V.MATHEW, S/O.VARKEY PULINIKUMTHADATHIL HOUSE, S.R.M.ROAD,, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH

¶8

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 KOONA SUDHAKAR @SUDHAKAR S/O.LATE VENKATESAN, H.NO.19-1-1677, DOOD BOULI, HYDERABAD-64, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,, KOCHI-16. BY ADVS. T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.DEEPA GEORGE K.K.AKHIL

¶10

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

MACA 1566/2009

C.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

M.A.C.A No.1566 of 2009

¶15

Dated this the 20^th day of July, 2022

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

The appellant/claimant is the father of one Mr.Aby Mathew, who succumbed to the injuries in an accident which occurred on 30.10.2002, while he was travelling as a passenger in a car. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal quantified the amount to be paid as compensation, but directed the first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle to honour the claim, exonerating the second respondent/ Insurance Company, on the premise that the deceased at the time of accident was only a gratuitous passenger and that no extra amount has been paid towards premium to cover their risk. The only bone of contention in this appeal is that the subject policy is not an act only policy, but a comprehensive/ package policy, wherefore, the Insurance Company is liable. In such circumstances, the second respondent/Insurance Company may be directed to honour the compensation amount awarded by the learned

¶18

MACA 1566/2009

¶19

¶20

Tribunal is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶21

Learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance Company would admit that the policy involved is a comprehensive/package policy. Once the same is admitted, the circular issued by the I.R.D.A bearing No.IRDA/NL/CIR/F&U/078/12/2009 dated 3.12.2009, as taken note of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balakrishnan and Another [(2013) 1 SCC 731), would clarify the legal position, beyond the cavil of any doubt, that the passenger in a private car or the pillion rider in a motor cycle, as the case may be, is entitled to just compensation.

¶22

In the circumstances, that part of the award which directs the first respondent/owner to honour the claim, exonerating the second respondent, is hereby set aside. The amount found payable by the Tribunal, in respect of which there is no dispute raised before this Court, will be paid by the second respondent/Insurance Company, together with interest and costs as ordered by the Tribunal, within the period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy

¶23

MACA 1566/2009

¶24

¶25

of this judgment. If no payment is made within 60 days as directed above, the amount will carry interest @ 8%, which again is in consonance with the interest rate awarded by the Tribunal. The period of delay to the extent of 304 days in preferring the appeal will not carry any interest, as specified in the order dated 14.9.2021 in C.M.Appl.No.2/2009.

¶26

4. The M.A.C.A is disposed of as above.

¶27

Sd/C.JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶28

P.v.Mathew v. Koona Sudhakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.v.Mathew v. Koona Sudhakar

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

Jaleel Hussain Vs Kottayam Muncipality

Satheesh Kumar S. Vs the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Santhosh P.G. Vs the Tahsildar, Ranni

Sathyan Vs Jyothi Kumar

C.P.Thomas Vs Murugan

Shahidha Vs Mani.P