Kerala High Court
Junaid vs United India Insurance Company Ltd on 10 January, 2025
2025:KER:1619
MACA No.279/2018
..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 20TH POUSHA, 1946
MACA NO. 279 OF 2018
OPMV NO.327 OF 2013 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 JUNAID, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.JALALUDEEN, DARUSALAM
MANZIL, VELICHIKALA PO, NEDUMPANA-691573.
2 ABOOBECKER, AGED 78 YEARS, S/O.ABDULKHADER KUNJU,
KOORIPOIKAYIL, VELICHIKALA P O, KOLLAM 691573.
BY ADV SRI.LEGY ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
G.K.COMPLEX, IST FLOOR,N.H.ROAD,CHATHANOOR, KOLLAM,
PIN-691572.
2 JALEEL, AGED 29 YEARS,DARUSALAM MANZIL, VELICHIKALA
PO,NEDUMPANA-691573.
BY ADV SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 28.10.2024, THE COURT ON 10.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:1619
MACA No.279/2018
..2..
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the claimants 2 & 3 in OP(MV)
No. 327 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Kollam. The respondents herein were the third respondent and the first
claimant before the tribunal.
2. The case of the appellants/claimants is that on
04.10.2012, while the deceased was pillion riding on a motorcycle
bearing Reg.No.KL-1-AN-4992 ridden by the second respondent in a
rash and negligent manner, the second respondent suddenly applied the
brakes, causing the deceased to be thrown off the motorcycle, resulting
in fatal injuries that ultimately led to her demise. The claimants, being
the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total
compensation of ₹12,50,000/-, which was subsequently amended as
₹1,10,000/-.
3. The first respondent appeared before the tribunal and
filed a written statement. The second respondent remained ex parte
before the tribunal. The respondent insurer filed a written statement,
admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing
the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal,
2025:KER:1619
..3..
PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on the
side of the appellants/claimants. RW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B5
were marked on the side of the respondents. The tribunal, after
analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident
took place on account of the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle
and awarded a compensation of ₹1,10,000/- as contractual liability
against the third respondent insurer. However, the tribunal, finding that
the maximum amount of contractual liability as per Ext.B2 policy is
₹1,10,000/-, held that the claimants are not entitled to get any interest.
Challenging this, the claimants have come up in appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.
5. The sole challenge in this appeal pertains to the
tribunal's decision not to award interest on the awarded amount. On a
perusal of the impugned award, it is seen that the original claim raised
by the appellants was for a sum of ₹12,50,000/-; and in the written
statement of the respondent insurer, it was stated that the claimants are
entitled to an amount of ₹1,10,000/- only; and thereafter, the prayer was
amended by the appellants reducing the claim to ₹1,10,000/- as per an
order in IA No.365 of 2017. However, while awarding the compensation
of ₹1,10,000/-, the tribunal held that being a contractual liability, the
2025:KER:1619
..4..
claimants are not entitled to get any interest on that amount.
6. Regarding the liability of the insurer, it is admitted by
both sides that the appellants/claimants are entitled to get a
compensation of ₹1,10,000/- only, since there was only contractual
liability and the maximum amount of contractual liability is ₹1,10,000/-
for the pillion rider. In IA No. 365 of 2017, the appellants had admitted
that Ext.B2 was an act only policy and an additional premium was paid
towards personal accident coverage to two unnamed passengers with a
limit of ₹1,10,000/- per person. It was also admitted that the liability of
the insurer is limited to the extent of the amount shown in the policy
under personal accident cover. The third respondent insurer admitted at
the time of hearing that there was a valid policy issued by them in the
name of the first respondent and the pillion rider is entitled to get a
compensation of ₹1,10,000/- only, which is not statutory liability, but a
contractual liability.
7. The claim petition was filed on 14.03.2013. Along with
the claim petition, the appellants did not produce the copy of the policy.
Thereafter, in IA No. 365 of 2017, the appellants sought for an
amendment of the claim petition for limiting their claim amount to
₹1,10,000/-, to which no objection was filed by the insurer. The IA was
allowed and the amendment was carried out in the claim petition.
2025:KER:1619
..5..
Though the respondent insurer admitted in the written statement that
there was a valid policy issued by them in the name of the first
respondent and they were aware of the fact that the pillion rider was
entitled to a compensation of ₹1,10,000/-, it was not disclosed in the
written statement filed on 12.04.2016.
8. The appellants had validly filed a claim petition though
the amount claimed was very high. Moreover, the fact that the
appellants were entitled for an amount of ₹1,10,000/- is not disputed by
the insurer. Merely because the claim petition was originally filed for a
higher amount, it does not disentitle the claimants from claiming a
lesser amount to which they are entitled. While awarding compensation,
it was the discretion of the tribunal to award interest on the awarded
amount. However, as a matter of fact, on the date of filing the claim
petition, the appellants were eligible for the amount of ₹1,10,000/- as
per Ext.B2 policy certificate issued by the insurer. Therefore, I am of the
opinion that the claimants are entitled for interest on the compensation
of ₹1,10,000/- from the date of filing the claim petition till realization.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award of the
tribunal is modified to the extent of directing the third respondent
insurer to pay interest on the amount of ₹1,10,000/- at the rate of 7%
per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. The
2025:KER:1619
..6..
respondent insurer shall deposit the amount of ₹1,10,000/-, if not
already paid, together with interest within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The appellants
shall furnish copies of the PAN Card, AADHAAR Card and bank details
before the respondent insurer within a period of one month so as to
enable the insurance company to make the deposit as ordered above. In
case of failure to furnish details as above, it shall be open for the
insurance company to deposit the said amount before the tribunal. Upon
such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be disbursed to the
appellants at the earliest in accordance with law.
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
JUDGE
bka/-
