Remanded

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited v. Anitha

Kerala HC9 Feb 2023MACA/105/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Motor Accident Claims Appeal challenged the Tribunal's Award where the Insurance Company argued the policy was Act only/Liability only. The High Court held the Tribunal erred in not addressing this pivotal issue and remanded the matter solely to decide if the appellant is liable to indemnify respondents for fixed compensation.

What did the court decide?

Appeal remanded to the Tribunal to reconsider liability of the appellant on the specific question of policy type (Act only/Liability only).

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs Anitha — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 20TH MAGHA, 1944

¶3

MACA NO. 105 OF 2020

¶4

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(MV)574/2018 OF DISTRICT COURT
& SESIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KALPETTA
APPELLANT/S:

¶5

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
YMCA CROSS ROAD, KANNUR ROAD, KOZHIKODE NOW
REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, IFFCO BHAVAN,
THOTTAKKAT ROAD, KOCHI-11
BY ADVS.
MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW

¶6

RESPONDENT/S:

¶7

1ANITHA
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O.LATE NARAYANAN, RAMAKRIPA HOUSE,
THARIYODE.P.O., KAVUMANNAM VILLAGE, VYTHIRI
TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673122

¶8

2ANOOP MENON
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O.LATE NARAYANAN, RAMAKRIPA HOUSE,
THARIYODE.P.O., KAVUMANNAM VILLAGE, VYTHIRI
TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673122
3NEENU
AGED 27 YEARS
D/O.LATE NARAYANAN, RAMAKRIPA HOUSE,
THARIYODE.P.O., KAVUMANNAM VILLAGE, VYTHIRI
TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673122
4REJI JOHN
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.JOHNY, PALLATHUPADIVATHIKAL HOUSE,
KURICHYARMALA, POZHUTHANA.P.O., VYTHIRI TALUK,
WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673575

¶9

MACA.No.105/2020

¶10

..2..

¶11

5SHAJI JOHN
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.JOHNY,4/578, PALLATHUPADIVATHIKAL HOUSE,
KURICHYARMALA, POZHUTHANA.P.O., VYTHIRI TALUK,
WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673575
BY ADV CELINE JOSEPH

¶12

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 09.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

..3..

MACA.No.105/2020

JUDGMENT

The appellant - Insurance Company impugns the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Wayanad (‘Tribunal’ for short), in OP(MV)No.574/18, solely on the ground that Ext.B1 - Policy issued was only an “Act only/Liability only” one; and therefore, that the compensation assesed by the Tribunal could not have been burdened on them.

¶17

Sri.Mathew Jacob – learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Preethy Nair, appearing for the appellant, submitted that even though his client had filed a written statement and an additional written statement before the learned Tribunal, specifically averring as afore, it did not consider the same at all, but went on to hold that their case was confined to the allegation that the driver did not have a valid driving policy. He submitted that this is in error because, when Ext.B1 insurance policy is an “Act only/Liability only” one, even if compensation could have been imposed against the driver and the owner, its burden could not have been shifted on his client.

¶18

..4..

¶19

MACA.No.105/2020

¶20

Smt.Celine Joseph – learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the claimants, submitted that the Tribunal has correctly found that her clients were entitled to compensation and that it is to be paid by the appellant - Insurance Company. She thus prayed that this appeal be dismissed.

¶21

From the files, I notice that even though respondent Nos.4 and 5 have been validly served, they have chosen not to be present in person and to be represented through counsel; inferentially guiding me to the impression that they have nothing to offer in answer to the assertions of the appellant.

¶22

The afore narrative shows that the sole point in controversy in this case is whether Ext.B1 is an “Act only/Liability only” policy. As rightly argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, this aspect has not been even touched upon by the Tribunal; though it has found that the further allegation of the appellant, that the driver did not have a valid Driving License, was not correct.

¶23

I am, therefore, of the firm view that, the matter will have to be reconsidered by the Tribunal, however, solely on the aspect whether the appellant can be burdened with the liability

¶24

..5..

¶25

MACA.No.105/2020

¶26

to pay compensation already fixed.

¶27

Resultantly, I remand this appeal to the learned Tribunal; to consider, solely the question whether the appellant is liable to indemnify respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for the compensation fixed by it in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein. The learned Tribunal shall, after affording necessary fresh opportunities of hearing to both sides, issue a new Award in this regard, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶28

I make it clear that this Court has not dealt in any manner with the other findings and holdings of the Tribunal and that all of them, including the quantum of compensation in favour of the claimants, are left intact.

¶29

For the afore purpose, the parties, except the claimants, shall appear before the Tribunal at 11 AM on 02.03.2023.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶32

ACR

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited v. Anitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited v. Anitha

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

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Musthafa

Jacob Poulose, Vs Biju Prabhakar

P v Sunny, Vs Biju Prabhakar

Michael Sebasitan @ Santhosh Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

Michael Sebastian @ Santhosh, Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

Vishnu Vs the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd, Kollam