Kerala High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Arun S. Raj on 1 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 12TH MAGHA, 1944
MACA NO. 4624 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT in OPMV 1527/2012 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,ATTINGAL
APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
REGIONAL OFFICE, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN,
PIN - 682 035, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.
BY ADV JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:
1 ARUN S. RAJ, AGED 27 YEARS
S/O.RAJU, SUMATHI NIVAS, KEEZHATTINGAL P.O.,
KADAKKAVOOR, KERALA, PIN - 695 306.
2 SANTHOSHKUMAR, S/O.SWAMINATHAN CHETTIYAR, SANTHOSH
BHAVAN, NAVAIKULAM P.O., KERALA, PIN - 695 603.
3 SUNILKUMAR, S/O.SOMAN, AIKKARAVILAKAM, KEEZHATTINGAL
P.O., ATTINGAL, KERALA, PIN - 695 306.
4 RAVEENDRAN G., S/O.GOPALAN, SANTHA NIVAS, MARKET ROAD,
ATTINGAL P.O., KERALA, PIN - 695 101.
5 SAJEESHKUMAR, S/O.SANKARAMKUTTY NAIR, SAJI VILASOM,
KEEZHATTINGAL P.O., ATTINGAL, KERALA, PIN - 695 306.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 01.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 4624 OF 2019
2
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been preferred by the United India
Insurance Company Limited against the Award of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal in O.P.(M.V)
No.1527/2012.
2. Even though service of summons from this Court
have been validly served on the respondents, they have
chosen not to be present in person or to be represented
through counsel. This court is, therefore, constrained to
dispose of this matter without their appearance.
3. Sri.John Joseph Vettikad - learned standing counsel
for the appellant, submitted that the sole reason why his
client has been constrained to approach this Court is
because the Tribunal, even after finding that Ext.B1 policy
did not cover the pillion rider - namely the claimant -
directed them to pay the amount under the Award, with
liberty to recover it from the owner of the vehicle, namely
the second respondent herein. He argued that this was
impermissible because, when the policy was found to be an
"act only" one, the insurance company could not have been
directed to pay the amount, even with the liberty to recover
MACA NO. 4624 OF 2019
it from the owner. He contended that this is not a case of
a violation of the policy conditions, but of no policy at all, as
far as the pillion rider of the vehicle is concerned; and thus
that the impugned order is in error.
4. I have gone through the impugned Award of the
Tribunal, particularly paragraph 25 thereof, which reads
as under:
"But the 5th respondent took the contention that
the offended vehicle had no coverage to the pillion
rider. Ext.B1 policy was marked. It is a liabiilty only
policy. No premium was taken to cover the pillion rider
on the bike. Therefore, the insurance compnay is not
liable to indemnify the 1st respondent. In the light of
the decision Manuara Khatan and Others Vs. Rajesh
kumar Sing and Others 2017 ACJ 1031, the 5 th
respondent is legally bound to pay the amount and
recover from the 1st respondent,. Hence issue No. (3) is
found accordingly".
5. There is some force in the submissions of Sri.John
Joseph Vettikad, since the Tribunal has luculently found
that Ext.B1 policy is a "liability only policy". It is also
recorded that "no premium was taken to cover the pillion
rider". However, thereafter, the Tribunal held that "the
Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the first
respondent namely the owner of the vehicle".
6. If the afore be so, then certainly, a doubt arises as
MACA NO. 4624 OF 2019
to how the Tribunal found the appellant - Insurance
Company, liable to pay the amount, but to recover it from
the owner of the vehicle, namely the second respondent
herein. There is no discussion on this issue and no reasons
have also been given by the said Tribunal.
7. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the matter
will have to be reconsidered by the Tribunal on this sole
issue; however, without entering into any other aspect,
including the quantum of amounts otherwise awarded.
8. In the afore circumstances, I remand this appeal to
the Tribunal for reconsideration of the afore aspect alone,
leaving all other aspects in tact; with a direction to the said
Tribunal to issue a fresh order on this issue, after affording
necessary opportunity of being heard to both sides, as
expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, while the afore exercise is completed,
the parties will be at liberty to cite and rely upon any
precedent that they may choose before the Tribunal,
including New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Daisy Paul
and another [2021 (2) KHC 449], which has been cited by
MACA NO. 4624 OF 2019
Sri.John Joseph Vettikad before this Court; and which shall
be adverted to by the said Tribunal.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
stu
