Kerala High Court
Sulaikha vs Arif on 21 January, 2025
MACA No. 992 of 2015
1
2025:KER:17164
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 1ST MAGHA, 1946
MACA NO. 992 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OPMV NO.83 OF 2013
OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL TIRUR
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SULAIKHA
AGED 51 YEARS, W/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, CHUNDAN VEETTIL
PUTHIYA NALAKATH HOUSE, 'AJOOS',P.O.TANUR, TIRUR
TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2 ABDUL RAHMAN
AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.BAPPU HAJI, CHUNDAN VEETTIL
PUTHIYA NALAKATH HOUSE,'AJOOS',P.O.TANUR, TIRUR
TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
SRI.Y.JAFAR KHAN
RESPONDENTS/2ND RESPONDENT:
1 ARIF
S/O.UMMER, PAZHAYAKATH HOUSE, P.O.VETTOM,TIRUR
TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676102.
2 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
PALLIKKAL SHOPPING COMPLEX,KOZHIKODE
ROAD,P.O.MANJERI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN 676121.
BY ADVS.
K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF
P.K.SANTHAMMA
MACA No. 992 of 2015
2
2025:KER:17164
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
MACA No. 992 of 2015
3
2025:KER:17164
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.
------------------------------------
MACA No. 992 of 2015
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No. 83/ 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirur are the appellants herein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal)
2. The O.P. was filed under under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioners are the parents of the deceased by Junaid Rahman, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 02.07.2012. According to them, on 02.07.2012, at about 10 p.m. while the deceased was driving the Car bearing No.KL-55-J-6967 from Calicut to Tanur through Calicut - Tirur public road and when he reached at the place of occurrence, swerved the car to the right side on seeing a lorry coming from the opposite direction, in order to avoid a collision. As a result of the impact, the car ran over the granite stones on the road side and capsized, resulting grievous injuries and later on he succumbed to the MACA No. 992 of 2015 4 2025:KER:17164 injuries, on the same day.
3. The 1st respondent is the owner and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the insurance coverage for the vehicle and denying the liability on the ground that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased.
5. The evidence in the case consists of documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A6 and B1 and B2.
6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the deceased borrowed the vehicle from the 1 st respondent and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. The Tribunal further found that the petitioners failed to prove that there is any personal accident coverage in the insurance policy and accordingly dismissed the claim petition.
7. Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the petitioners preferred this appeal.
8. Now the points that arises for consideration are the MACA No. 992 of 2015 5 2025:KER:17164 following:
(1) Whether the Car bearing Reg. No. KL-55-J-
6967 had personal accident coverage on the date of accident on 02.07.2012 (2) What is the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the petitioners, in case it is found that there was personal accident coverage to the car.
9. Heard Sri. K.P. Sudheer, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, and Smt. P.K. Santhamma, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
10. The Point: The learned counsel for the petitoners would argue that in fact the car involved in the accident had valid personal accident coverage, but it was not produced before the Tribunal. She has produced a copy of the policy as well as copy of the RC Book of the vehicle KL-55-J-6967 to show that during the relevant period, the said car had personal accident coverage. Since the 2nd respondent has admitted in their written statement and the car had valid insurance coverage and claimed that they have no liability as a policy does not include personal accident coverage, it is the duty of the insurer to produce the policy and prove the exemption from the coverage.
11. At the time of arguments, both sides relied upon the MACA No. 992 of 2015 6 2025:KER:17164 decision of a Single Bench of this Court in Kunjila v. Mary [2024 KHC 219]. In the above decision the deceased borrowed the vehicle from its owner and while driving the same met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries. In the above context, relying upon the terms of insurance policy, the learned Single Judge found that the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to only a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- which is the amount agreed to be paid as per the terms of the personal accident policy. In the instant case also, admittedly the personal accident coverage is only Rs.1,00,000/- for a single individual.
12. In the above circumstances, the petitioners being the legal heirs of the deceased driver of the car bearing Reg. No. KL-55-J-6967 during the relevant period are entitled to get a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, along with reasonable rate of interest. Considering the facts, I hold that interest @ 8% per annum will be reasonable in this case.
13. In the result, this Appeal is allowed in part as follows:
The impugned award of the Tribunal dismissing the O.P. (MV)No. 83/2013 is set aside, the O.P's allowed and the 2 nd respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation, with proportionate MACA No. 992 of 2015 7 2025:KER:17164 costs to the petitioners, within a period of two months from today.
14. On depositing the aforesaid amount, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the petitioners, in the ratio fixed by the Tribunal, excluding court fee payable, if any, without delay, as per rules.
Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE sjb/21.01.2025