Kerala High Court
The National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Imran Umar Muhammed on 20 May, 2024
Author: Mary Joseph
Bench: Mary Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
MACA NO. 769 OF 2024
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 19.07.2023 IN OP(MV) NO.2230 OF 2019 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, URUMBATH BUILDING, PUMP JUNCTION,
ALUVA-683101, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT
MANAGER(LEGAL), REGIONAL OFFICE, OMANA BUILDING, M.G.
ROAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682 035
BY ADVS.
GEORGE A.CHERIAN
SOUMYA FRANCIS
GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIMANT & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:
1 IMRAN UMAR MUHAMMED,
AGED 14 YEARS,
S/O UMMER, KUPPIYAN HOUSE, NEAR KRISHIBHAVAN,
OKKAL.P.O. REP. BY HER MOTHER REHNA N.S.,
AGED 47 YEARS, W/O UMMER, KUPPIYAN HOUSE, NEAR
KRISHIBHAVAN, OKKAL.P.O., PIN - 683 550
2 SAHADEVAN. M.N.,
S/O NARAYANAN, 108A, RAILWAY QUARTERS, AKATHETHARA,
KALLEKKULANGARA.P. O. , PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 009
3 RINUSHUDEEN.K,
S/O KAMALUDEEN, 6/ 185, PUDUPPARIYARAM.P.O., PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678 731
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING ON 04.03.2024 AND THE COURT ON 20.05.2024, DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A. No769 of 2024
2
MARY JOSEPH, J.
-----------------------
M.A.C.A. No.769 of 2024
-----------------------
Dated this the 20th day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the insurer of a car bearing
Registration No.KL-9/AN-8772 allegedly involved in a motor
accident occurred at about 2.55 p.m on 16.11.2019 at Okkal
situated in Perumbavoor-Kalady road. The 1 st respondent in
the appeal was allegedly sustained injuries in the above motor
accident. Claiming a sum of `20,00,000/- as compensation
from the owner, the driver and the insurer of the above Car,
the 1st respondent filed O.P(M.V) No.2230/2019 before the
Tribunal.
2. Notice was issued from the Tribunal to all
respondents. The owner and the driver of the vehicle, who
were arrayed as respondents 1 and 2 did not turn up to
contest the Original Petition, though notice was served on
them. Therefore, they were declared as ex parte.
3. The insurer of the car arrayed as 3 rd
respondent was served with notice and they filed written
M.A.C.A. No769 of 2024
statement denying the issuance of a certificate of insurance for
the vehicle covering the date of the motor accident. According
to them, the car bearing Registration No. KL-9/AN-8772 was
insured with them only for a period from 04.01.2018 till
03.01.2019. According to them, the policy was not renewed
thereafter. According to them, the policy produced by the
petitioner covering the period from 04.01.2019 till 03.01.2020
is not a genuine policy but a fake one, for the reason that the
number of the cheque by which premium was paid under that
policy and the earlier one are one and the same. Thus the 3 rd
respondent denied it's liability to indemnify the insured for the
compensation if any found payable in favour of the petitioner.
The claims raised by the petitioner in the Original Petition
under other heads of the Original Petition were also disputed.
4. Before the Tribunal, petitioner marked
Exts.A1 to A14, B1 and C1 in evidence. On the side of the 3 rd
respondent, its Deputy Manager was examined as RW1.
5. The Tribunal appreciated the evidence in the
light of the rival contentions raised by the parties and arrived
at a sum of `7,11,528/- as the compensation payable by the
3rd respondent in favour of the petitioner. It also ordered to
M.A.C.A. No769 of 2024
pay interest for that sum at the rate of 8% per annum from
the date of filing of the Original Petition till the date of
realisaiton and proportionate costs. 3rd respondent was
directed to deposit the compensation with interest and costs
within one month from the date on which the impugned award
was passed.
6. Aggrieved by the fixation of liability on the 3 rd
respondent/insurer to indemnify the insured by paying the
compensation with interest and cost in favour of the petitioner,
the appeal on hand was filed by them. The contention raised
was that though the Tribunal found that the policy marked by
the petitioner in evidence as Ext.A14 was a fake policy, it fixed
liability upon the 3rd respondent to indemnify the insured.
According to him, the Tribunal is not justified in fixing liability
accordingly. When the appeal came up for admission, both
counsel representing the petitioner and the respondent were
heard.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
invited attention of this Court to paragraph 17 of the impugned
award wherein the Deputy Manager of the 3 rd respondent when
examined before the Tribunal as RW1 has stated that the 3 rd
M.A.C.A. No769 of 2024
respondent had knowledge about the fake nature of the policy
produced by the petitioner as Ext.A14 during the period 2020-
2021 itself and that it was issued by none other than Maruthi
Broking company, which is a Corporate agent of the 3 rd
respondent. According to RW1, he made enquiries on his own
into the matter and came to know that a policy as Ext.A14 was
not given by the 3rd respondent.
8. RW1 has deposed further about the
impossibility of issuing one cheque for payment of premiums
for different periods. But it is pertinent to note that no
materials are produced regarding the enquiry conducted on the
alleged foul play behind creation of Ext.A14 and the action
taken in that regard.
9. It is the bounden duty of the 3 rd respondent
to conduct a discrete enquiry when the factum of issuance of a
fake policy came to its notice. Despite coming to know about
the issuance of a fake policy covering the period 03.01.2019
till 04.01.2020, in 2020-2021 itself, the 3 rd respondent has not
taken any measures to see that Ext.A14 will not be acted upon
by any person. The 3 rd respondent failed in doing so and
allowed the fake policy to exist and caused its production by
M.A.C.A. No769 of 2024
the petitioner before the Tribunal in the Original Petition.
Therefore, the 3rd respondent cannot escape from its liability to
indemnify the insured contending that Ext.A14 is only a fake
policy. The Tribunal has held correctly that the 3 rd respondent
is liable to indemnify the insured for the compensation arrived
at by the impugned award in favour of the petitioner.
Appeal is not liable to be admitted for the reasons. In
the result, appeal is dismissed in limine.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH
JUDGE
JJ
