National Insurace Company ... vs K.P.Sivaraman
2021 Latest Caselaw 23730 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
    TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
                        MACA NO. 2622 OF 2010
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 05.08.2010 IN OPMV 257/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
                        CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:

           NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
           PALA NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, KOCHI, REGIONAL
           OFFICE, OMANA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD,, KOCHI-35.

           BY ADVS.
           SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN
           SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW



RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT:

     1     K.P.SIVARAMAN, SUJA NIVAS,
           MANARCADU, NOW RESIDING AT ULLAS BHAVAN,, KUDAKKACHIRA
           P.O., UZHAVOOR-686635.

     2     MANIYAN S/O.KRISHNAN
           PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM P.O.,
           MARAVANTHURUTHU VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK-686608.

           BY ADVS.
           SRI.L.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN
           SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN




     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 30.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA NO. 2622 OF 2010         2




           Dated this the 30th day of November,2021



                    JUDGMENT

The appellant-insurer was the 2nd respondent in

O.P (MV) No.257/2009 on the file of the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. The first respondent

was the petitioner and second respondent was the

first respondent before the Tribunal.

2. The first respondent had filed the claim

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles

Act,1988( in short 'Act') claiming compensation on

account of the injuries that he sustained in an

accident on 07.09.2008. It was his case that, while he

was driving a Maruti car bearing registration No. KL

45 G 8618 on 07.09.2008, a mini lorry bearing

registration No. KL 5 3463 (lorry) driven by the

second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit

the car. The second respondent was owner and the

appellant was insurer of the lorry. The first

respondent sustained serious injuries and he claimed

a compensation of Rs.5,59,000/- from the appellant

and the second respondent.

3. The second respondent did not contest the

proceeding.

4. The appellant had filed a written statement

admitting that the lorry had a valid insurance

coverage. However, it was contended that since the

lorry did not have a valid permit, there was violation

of policy conditions and the appellant may be

exonerated of its liability.

5. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleading and

materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part,

by permitting the first respondent to recover from the

appellant an amount of Rs.4,12,000/- with interest and

cost.

6. Aggrieved by the allowing of the claim petition

and the refusal to permit the appellant to recover the

compensation amount from the second respondent,

the insurer is in appeal.

7. Heard; Sri. P.Jacob Mathew the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant-insurer and

Sri.C.K. Govindan the learned counsel appearing for

the second respondent.

8. This Court at the time of admitting the

appeal by order dated 20.12.2010 declined to issue

notice on the question of quantum of compensation

awarded by the Tribunal. Instead this Court only

issued notice to the second respondent on the

question whether the appellant is entitled for

recovery rights as against the second respondent.

9. Therefore, the sole question that arises for

consideration in the appeal is whether the appellant is

entitled to pay the compensation amount and recover

the same from the second respondent.

10. During the pendency of the appeal, the

second respondent has produced the permit of the

lorry, which proves that the lorry had a valid permit

for the period from 5.10.2007 to 4.10.2012.

Undisputedly, the accident occurred on 07.09.2008

viz. during the validity of the above permit. The said

permit is accepted on record and marked as Exhibit

B1.

11. In the light of Exhibit B1 permit, I hold that

the appellant is not entitled to the right of recovery

against the second respondent, since there is no

violation of the insurance policy conditions. There is

no error or illegality in the impugned award passed by

the Tribunal.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. In the

facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall

bear their respective costs.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, will

stand dismissed.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS,JUDGE

rmm/30.11.2021

APPENDIX

ANNEXURE I The copy of the permit of the lorry dated 5.10.2007 produced by the second respondent.