Kerala High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Sunil K on 29 May, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/3RD ASWINA, 1936
MACA.No. 211 of 2011 ( )
-------------------------
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OP(MV) 2631/2003 OF ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR DATED 29-05-2010
APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:
------------------------------------------------------
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
NORTH PARAVUR NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
REGIONAL OFFICE, "SHARANYA", HOSPITAL ROAD
KOCHI-11.
BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1&2:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. SUNIL K., S/O. KARTHIKEYAN,
KAIMAPARAMBIL HOUSE, TC 31/940, CHIYYARAM P.O.
P.O.ROAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001.
2. SIRAJUDEEN, ANDETH HOUSE, NEELESWARAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683584.
3. VIKAS P.V., S/O.VIDYADHARAN,
PARAMBINMEL PARAMBU, NORTH PARAVUR, VADAKKEKARA P.O.
NENDOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, 683513.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25-09-2014, ALONG WITH MACA. 263/2011, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Shg/-
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M.A.C.A.Nos.211 & 263 of 2011
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2014
J U D G M E N T
The first respondent in both the appeals were travelling in a private car when it met with an accident. In the accident, they sustained injuries. On the allegation that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle, they filed petitions before the Tribunal for compensation. The Tribunal found that the allegations were true and it awarded compensation to the claimants. The vehicle had been insured with the appellant in both the appeals. One of the contentions of the appellant was that the policy was an Act only policy and the claimants being gratuitous passengers, the appellant had no liability to pay compensation. The objection was overruled by the Tribunal and it directed the appellant to pay the compensation.
2. Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant. There has been no representation for the M.A.C.A.Nos.211 & 263 of 2011 -2- respondents.
3. The facts that the policy was an Act only policy and the claimants were gratuitous passengers in it are not disputed. In view of the decision reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [2006 (2) KLT 884 (SC)] there is no doubt that the gratuitous passengers are not entitled to the insurance coverage. So the Tribunal was wrong in directing the appellant to pay the amount. But the first respondent can recover the amount from the second respondent, owner of the vehicle.
In the result, this appeal is allowed and the awards are modified to the extent that the appellant is exonerated from the liability to pay the amount. The first respondent in each case may recover the amount from the second and third respondents.
The amounts already deposited by the appellant in the Tribunal shall be refunded to it. No costs.
Sd/-
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/