National Insurance Company vs Arunjith.C

Kerala High Court

National Insurance Company vs Arunjith.C on 21 May, 2024

Author: Mary Joseph

Bench: Mary Joseph

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
  TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
                     MACA NO. 1018 OF 2022
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 30.11.2021 IN O.P(M.V) NO.312 OF
2020 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, WAYANAD, KALPETTA
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:

            NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. BRANCH OFFICE,
            KALPANA SHOPPING COMPLEX, KALPETTA POST,
            WAYANAD-673121. REPRESENTED BY AJITH SASHTRI,
            ASSISTANT MANAGER (LEGAL), NATIONAL INSURANCE
            CO.LTD, 1ST AND 2ND FLOOR, OMANA BUILDING,
            PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI 682035.

            BY ADV SRI.KIRAN PETER KURIAKOSE


RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & 1ST RESPONDENT:

    1       ARUNJITH.C, S/O.KRISHNAN, CHERUKUTTY HOUSE,
            MANIKUNI SULTANBATHERY POST & TALUK,
            WAYANAD DISTRICT - 673592
    2       AJEESH C.A., S/O.APPUNNI,
            CHOLAPALLIYALIL HOUSE, CHULLIYODE POST,
            NENMANI AMSOM, SULTANBATHERY TALUK,
            WAYANAD - 673592.
    3       SMITHA MURALI, W/O.MURALI,
            CHOLAPALLIYALIL HOUSE, CHULLIYODE POST,
            NENMANI AMSOM, SULTANBATHERY TALUK,
            WAYANAD - 673592.
            BY ADVS.SRI.TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL)
                    SMT.ANUROOPA JAYADEVAN
                    SRI.E.S.FIROS(K/555/2014)
     THIS    MOTOR   ACCIDENT   CLAIMS   APPEAL   HAVING   BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 30.01.2024, THE COURT ON 21.05.2024
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 M.A.C.A. No. 1018 of 2022
                                  -:2:-




                          MARY JOSEPH, J.
                  -----------------------
                      M.A.C.A. No. 1018 of 2022
                  -----------------------
                  Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024


                             JUDGMENT

The appeal on hand is preferred against an award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Wayanad, Kalpetta (for short 'the Tribunal') on 30.11.2021 in O.P(M.V) No.312/2020. The appellant is the 3rd respondent/insurer of the offending vehicle involved in the motor accident.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 in accordance with their status in the Original Petition.

3. 3rd respondent has approached this Court challenging the fixation of liability on them to pay the compensation to the petitioner for the damages caused to his motorcycle. ₹50,000/- was awarded as compensation and the 3 rd respondent was directed to pay it to the petitioner alongwith interest at the rate M.A.C.A. No. 1018 of 2022 -:3:- of 9% per annum from the date of the Original Petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs. Challenge was mainly raised against the fixation of liability on the insurer solely on the strength of an agreement for sale of the vehicle.

4. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent contended that the motor accident in question was occurred in the year 2015 but the claim petition was filed only in the year 2020. According to him, the Tribunal erred in granting compensation for damages caused to the vehicle in favour the petitioner who was not the registered owner of the motorcycle at the relevant time of the motor accident. It was contended furthermore that the motor accident was occurred on 23.10.2015 but the actual transfer of the motorcycle was effected only on 19.07.2017 and therefore the petitioner has no locus standi to seek compensation for the damages caused to his motorcycle as it's owner at the relevant time.

5. The Original Petition on hand was tried alongwith O.P(M.V)No.332/2020, filed by the petitioner seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the motor M.A.C.A. No. 1018 of 2022 -:4:- accident. Evidence was adduced in common. Exts.A1 to A14 were marked on the side of the petitioner and Exts.B1 to B3, marked on the side of the respondents.

6. The sale agreement dated 20.10.2014 by which the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-10AQ-4664 was purported to be transferred by one Mr.Ashique in favour of the petitioner was marked in evidence as Ext.A12. It is revealed from the Certificate of Registration marked in evidence as Ext.A13 that the motorcycle was registered in the name of the petitioner only on 19.07.2017. The petitioner produced a CD and photographs to establish the damages caused to the motorcycle, marked in evidence as Ext.A9. The bills for repair dated 16.06.2017 and the estimate of insurance claim were marked in evidence respectively as Exts.A11 and 10. Both these documents were issued in the name of the original registered owner of the motorcycle.

7. It is found from the evidence on record that Ext.A12 was only an agreement for sale dated 20.10.2014 and the name of the petitioner was incorporated in the Certificate of Registration only on 19.07.2017, much later to the motor M.A.C.A. No. 1018 of 2022 -:5:- accident. Therefore, as on date of the motor accident, the vehicle was only possessed by the petitioner. As per Section 166(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the MV Act'), an application for compensation for damages caused to a motor vehicle in a motor accident can only be made by the 'owner of the property'. Section 2(30) of the MV Act defines the term "owner", which reads-

"(30) "owner" means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement;"

It is indicated from the provision supra that a person who has possession of the vehicle can be regarded as owner of the vehicle only when he is established as an owner under a hire-purchase agreement in the capacity of a hirer, a lessor under a lease agreement or as a lender under a hypothecation agreement.

8. True that the bills for repair and the estimate of insurance claim were issued in the name of the owner at the M.A.C.A. No. 1018 of 2022 -:6:- relevant time the vehicle met with the motor accident. Therefore, the possession of the motorcycle at the relevant time was revealed as, with the then owner of the vehicle. It is evident that the petitioner became the registered owner of the motorcycle later and in that capacity the Original Petition was filed. The vehicle was admittedly insured with the 3rd respondent at the relevant time of the motor accident. 3 rd respondent has no contention that an Original Petition seeking compensation for the damages sustained was filed by the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time of the motor accident. None else has also come before the Tribunal raising such a claim. The bills for repair of the vehicle though were issued in the name of the owner at the relevant time of the motor accident are now produced by the petitioner.

9. Even Section 166(1)(b) of the MV Act says that a petition seeking compensation for damages caused to a vehicle shall be filed by it's owner. The petitioner in the case in question being the registered owner of the vehicle at the relevant time of it's filing and the vehicle having been validly insured with the 3 rd M.A.C.A. No. 1018 of 2022 -:7:- respondent, it cannot seek exoneration from liability to indemnify the insured with regard to the compensation arrived at. Dispute was not raised against the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal. Therefore, the 3 rd respondent is liable to pay it with interest fixed at the rate and for the period, and proportionate costs. The award under challenge is maintained and MACA is dismissed.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH, JUDGE.

NAB