Allowed

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniyammal

Kerala HC17 Oct 2023MACA/6/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation against the appellant insurer despite no valid policy existing at the time of the accident. Setting aside the Tribunal's finding as erroneous, the High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the appellant's liability, directing refund of the deposit.

What did the court decide?

The award against the appellant to pay compensation is set aside; the statutory deposit is to be refunded to the appellant.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pazhaniyammal — Insurance | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 25TH ASWINA, 1945

¶5

MACA NO. 6 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 20.08.2018 IN OP(MV) 366/2016 OF ADDITIONAL MACT - IV, PALAKKAD

¶7

APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT IN THE O.P.:

¶8

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
UDUMELPET, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER & AUTHORISED
SIGNATORY, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE ERNAKULAM, METRO PALACE,
ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18.

¶9

BY ADV A.R.GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENT/CLAIMANTS & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN THE O.P.:

¶11

1PAZHANIYAMMAL,
W/O.PERUMAL, AGED 74 YEARS,
010/434 NATARAJ GEER COLONY, KOZHIPPATHI,
VANNAMADA, CHITTUR TALUK,

¶12

PALAKKAD -678555

¶13

2UDAYAVARSHINI (MINOR),
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, D/O.CHINNAPPAN, 7/287 MGR NAGAR,
MEENAKSHIPURAM, DIVASAN PUTHUR, AMBARPALAYAM ,
POLLACHI P.O., TAMIL NADU,
PIN – 642001

¶14

3RAVEENA C (MINOR),
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, D/O.CHINNAPPAN, 7/287 MGR NAGAR,
MEENAKSHIPURAM, DIVASAN PUTHUR, AMBARPALAYAM,
POLLACHI PO ., TAMIL NADU - 642001,
PIN – 642001

¶15

4 MARIMUTHU.R., S/O.RANGASWAMY, 2/34, N.CHANDRAPURAM, POLLACHI P.O., TAMIL NADU STATE – 642001

¶16

5RAMAKRISHNAN,
S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 49 YEARS, MULLAKKAL HOUSE,
MALAKKADCHALLA, 6TH MILE , NATTUKAL P.O.
CHITTUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 678583

¶17

MACA NO. 6 OF 2020

¶18

2

¶19

BY ADVS.
SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
SMT.K.VIJINA
SMT.JAEONA JAMES

¶20

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

MACA NO. 6 OF 2020

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The appellant is the 3^rd respondent in O.P.(M.V.)

¶25

No.366/2016 on the files of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal IV, Palakkad. The said claim petition was submitted by respondents 1 to 3 in this appeal seeking compensation for the death of one Chinnappan due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 22.09.2010.

¶26

According to respondents 1 to 3/claimants, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2^nd respondent in the claim petition in riding the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 41 H 6448, as it hit the motorcycle ridden by the deceased. The 1^st respondent in the claim petition was the owner of the said vehicle, which was insured with the appellant herein. As compensation, they claimed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-.

¶27

The 1^st and 2^nd respondents remained ex parte. The

¶28

appellant/3^rd respondent filed a written statement, contending

¶29

MACA NO. 6 OF 2020

¶30

4

¶31

that there was no valid policy for the vehicle at the time of the accident. The 2^nd respondent driver did not have an effective driving license at the time of the accident. The Police filed a final report against him under Section 3(1), read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, they sought exoneration from the liability.

¶32

The evidence in this case consists of Ext.A1 to A9 from the side of the respondents 1 to 3. No evidence was adduced from the side of the respondents in the claim petition. After examining the materials produced on record, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2^nd respondent in the claim petition, the 5^th respondent herein. The contention raised by the appellant that the vehicle was not covered by a valid policy was rejected, and the appellant was held liable to pay the compensation. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.12,21,200/- and the appellant was directed to deposit the amount along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

¶33

MACA NO. 6 OF 2020

¶34

¶35

This appeal is filed challenging the award passed by the Tribunal to the extent it is against the appellant.

¶36

Heard Sri.A.R. George, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Rajesh Sivaramankutty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. Even though service of notices was effected on the respondents 4 and 5, there is no appearance for them.

¶37

The main contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant is that, in the claim petition itself, the claimants have mentioned a policy number issued by the appellant herein. However, the policy referred to in the claim petition was valid from 14.10.2010 to 13.10.2011, whereas the accident occurred on 22.09.2010. Thus, going by the pleadings itself, it is evident that the policy referred to therein did not exist as on the date of the accident. In the written statement, the appellant specifically raised the contention that there was no valid policy for the vehicle at the relevant time. However, the Tribunal rejected the said contention by pointing

¶38

¶39

MACA NO. 6 OF 2020

¶40

out that the appellant did not even care to produce the policy document before the court, and no steps were taken to summon the policy document from the registered owner of the said vehicle. However, I am of the view that such a finding is erroneous. When the Insurance Company has taken a specific stand that they have not issued any policy, in the absence of any evidence that they issued a policy, no liability could have been imposed upon them. Similarly, the finding of the Tribunal that the Insurance Company ought to have taken steps to summon the policy document from the 1^st respondent is also not legally sustainable. This is particularly so when, in the claim petition, the claimants have referred to a policy document which was not valid at the time of the accident, even as per the dates mentioned in the claim petition. Therefore, in the absence of any policy, no responsibility could be imposed upon the Insurance Company as the liability can be extended to them only if there existed a valid policy. In such circumstances, I do not find any legally

¶41

¶42

MACA NO. 6 OF 2020

¶43

justifiable ground to uphold the finding of the Tribunal, and therefore, the said finding is hereby set aside.

¶44

In such circumstances, this appeal is allowed, and the award passed in O.P.(M.V.) No.366/2016 dated 20.08.2018 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal IV, Palakkad, to the extent it holds the appellant responsible for paying the amount awarded by the Tribunal, is hereby set aside. However, respondents 1 to 3 shall be entitled to recover the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from respondents 4 and 5 herein, who are respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition. With the above observations and findings, this appeal is disposed of. It is further ordered that the statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be refunded to them upon submitting an application before the Tribunal.

¶45

Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE

¶46

scs

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniyammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniyammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Vishnu P.S

K.a.Padmavathy & Others Vs Manikandan & Others

P.L.Antony Vs Bijoy Cyriac and Others

Meenakshi.a Vs Nithin Thomas

Navas Vs a.Shajahan

Safriyen Joy Vs Willaims A.A.