Kerala High Court
M/S. United India Insurance ... vs Babu Minnikkaran on 6 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1943
MACA NO. 3122 OF 2017
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 23.11.2016 IN OPMV 663/2015 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL , TALIPARAMBA
APPELLANT:3RD RESPONDENT
M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
NO.504, 1ST FLOOR, THARA BUILDING, NEARBUS STAND, NILESHWAR,
KASARGOD DIST.671314.
BY ADV SRI.S.ARUN RAJ
RESPONDENTS:1ST PETITIONER & 1ST & 2ND RESPONDENTS
1 BABU MINNIKKARAN
S/O KANNAN, NORTH MANAKKAD, P.O.KARIVELLUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-
670521.
2 PARAMBATH MUHAMMED MANZOOR
S/O ABOOBACKER, HAJIRA MANZIL, THAIKKADAPPURAM PO, NILESHWAR,
KASARGOD DISTRICT-671314.
3 KABEER V.P
S/O JAMEELA, JAMEELA HOUSE, TRIKARIPUR PO, CHANDERA,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671310.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.S.BINU FOR R1
SRI.T.MADHU FOR R3
SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI FOR R3
SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL FOR R1
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
A.BADHARUDEEN, J.
-----------------------------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.3122 of 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of July, 2021
JUDGMENT
This appeal arises out of award dated 23.11.2016 in O.P(MV)
No.663/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Taliparamba. The appellant herein is the original 3 rd respondent insurance
company.
2. Short facts of the case :
On 09.02.2014 at about 7.00 p.m, the petitioner in O.P(MV) was
travelling in a motorcycle from Karivellur to Onakkunnu. When the
petitioner reached in front of Supplyco Co-operative Store, the 1st respondent
drove the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-14-E-6002 in a rash and negligent
manner so as to endanger human life and hit the petitioner. Due to the
hitting, the petitioner sustained severe injury. The petitioner is a Weaving
Teacher and getting Rs.8,500/- per month. He claimed Rs.3,90,000/-
towards compensation.
3. In fact, the learned counsel for the appellant/3rd respondent
submitted that there was no valid policy at the time of accident which
occurred on 09.02.2014. But the Tribunal dispelled its contention after
highlighting the difference in the number of policy issued. The policy
bearing new No.1020023111 P 144119365 covering the period between 00
hrs on 23.6.2011 to midnight of 22.6.2012 as well as policy bearing
No.102081311100000616 issued prior to assignment of the new number
referred in the police records also produced before this Court. It is not in
dispute that the accident was on 9.2.2014. Going by the policy numbers
referred above, it could be seen that the 3 rd respondent/appellant issued
policy during the period between 23.6.2011 to 22.06.2012. Thereafter, no
policy was issued is the contention raised by the appellant/insurance
company.
4. Though the learned counsel for the insured, the owner of the
vehicle, submitted that there was a valid policy, he miserably failed to
produce the same or to suggest the number of policy either before the
Tribunal or before this Court.
5. Coming to the short dispute, the liability of the insurance
company is in question.
6. Here the insurance company denied policy to the offending
vehicle at the time of accident. The owner of the vehicle failed to establish
any valid policy at the time of accident. Thus there is no question of
fastening liability on the insurance company and the company is liable to be
exonerated from the liability. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal
negativing the contention of the insurance company is found to be
erroneous. Therefore, the same is to be interfered with.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal
is liable to be paid by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally, as ordered
by the Tribunal and the appellant/3rd respondent insurance company is
absolved from liability.
Sd/-
(A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE)
rtr/
