Allowed

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gopakumar

Kerala HC7 Mar 2023MACA/535/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal by United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the High Court allowed recovery of compensation paid to the claimant from the driver and vehicle owner. The Court held that since the driver did not possess a valid driving licence during the accident period, policy conditions were violated, entitling the insurer to recover the amount.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed authorising the appellant to recover the compensation amount paid from respondents 1 and 2 and their assets.

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gopakumar — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶5

MACA NO. 535 OF 2013

¶6

AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 1970/2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR

¶7

APPELLANT:

¶8

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL
OFFICE, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM

¶9

BY ADV
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 GOPAKUMAR

¶12

S/O KUNJU NAIR, KUNNUMMEL HOUSE,
NEAR COMPANY, CHOORAKODU, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE

¶13

2SUNNY SKARIYA
S/O C.D SKARIYA, CHELAKKATTU HOUSE,
MANEED P.O, PIRAVAM 686726

¶14

BY ADVS.
SRI.P.P.BIJU
SRI.SUNU P.JOHN
SRI.SUNU P.JOHN
SRI.C.V.SHAJU

¶15

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶16

MACA NO.535 OF 2013

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 07^th day of March, 2023

¶20

The 3^rd respondent - Insurer in O.P.(MV) No.1970/2006

¶21

on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor is the appellant herein.

¶22

The appellant is challenging the award as recovery was not ordered against the respondents, though there was violation of the policy conditions. According to them, the 1^st respondent - driver was not having valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle, as on the date of accident.

¶23

The accident occurred on 08.06.2006 at about 1.00 p.m., while the petitioner was riding his motor cycle through Kizhakkambalam - Pattimattom road. KL-7/L-2744 scooter ridden by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against his motor cycle and he fell down and sustained injuries. He approached the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.68,610/- directing the appellant – Insurer

¶24

MACA NO.535 OF 2013

¶25

¶26

to make the payment.

¶27

Before the Tribunal, the appellant/insurer had taken up a contention that the 1^st respondent – driver had no valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. IA 4266/2011 was filed by the appellant seeking direction to produce the driving licence of the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent produced the driving licence and on verification, the Tribunal found that it was a valid driving licence, effective on the date of accident. As no violation of policy conditions was noticed, learned Tribunal directed the insurer to compensate the injured.

¶28

Ext.XI (A) - final report, shows that the 1^st respondent was charged for an offence punishable under Section 3 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, also as he was not having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident. The insurer verified the driving licence of the 1^st respondent with the authorities concerned and found that he had no valid driving licence during the relevant period, and

¶29

MACA NO.535 OF 2013

¶30

¶31

hence preferred this appeal asserting that, since there was violation of the policy conditions, they are entitled to recover the compensation amount from respondents 1 and 2, i.e., the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

¶32

In the appeal, the appellant produced Annexures A1 and A2 documents along with IA No.776/2013. They contended that on verification of the driving licence with the Regional Transport Office, it was found that the 1^st respondent had no valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. Annexure A1 shows that the 1^st respondent had driving licence for the period 22.08.1998 till 03.05.2003, and it was renewed on 19.02.2007 and it was valid upto 03.05.2013. But, there is nothing in that document to show that during the period 2003 – 2007 his driving licence was renewed, and as on the date of accident in the year 2006, he was holding a valid driving licence.

¶33

Though, respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance in this appeal, and submitted their arguments, no documents

¶34

¶35

MACA NO.535 OF 2013

¶36

were produced to show that the 1^st respondent was having valid driving licence as on the date of accident. So obviously there is violation of the policy conditions. Since there was valid insurance policy, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation initially, but since there was violation of the policy conditions, the appellant is eligible to recover that amount from respondents 1 and 2, i.e., the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶37

So, the appeal is allowed authorising the appellant

¶38

to recover the compensation amount paid to the injured/claimant in OP(MV) 1970/2006 from respondents 1 and 2 and their assets.

¶39

The appeal stands allowed to that extent, modifying the impugned award.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE

¶42

ded/07.03.2023

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gopakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gopakumar

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

Joy K.D. Vs Jibin Jacob K.J

Suja @ Johna Suja Vs Jibin Jacob K.J.

N.M. Mathukutty Vs Suresh.K.K

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Susheela

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs P.K.Velayudhan

Ranjeev K.R. Vs Noorudeen P.A.