Kerala High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Lakshmi on 4 December, 2025
2025:KER:93973
WPC.No.40506/25 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA,
1947
WP(C) NO. 40506 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
RAMEEZ ARCADE, NEAR C H FLY OVER, KOZHIKODE
REPRESENTED BY ITS LAKSHMI K.J , DEPUTY MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REGIONAL
OFFICE, AL-NOOR COMPLEX, EAST NADAKAVU,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 006.
BY ADVS. SHRI.T.J.LAKSHMANAN IYER
SMT.MARY GILLS DCOSTA
SMT.ASHIFA SIDHIQUE
SMT.URMILA PRAVEEN
SMT.KARTHIKA M.R.
RESPONDENTS:
1 LAKSHMI, W/O.BALAN, PULLANIKKAD HOUSE,
CHIMBUKADU P.O, KUTHANUR,
PALAKKAD (DT), PIN - 678 721.
2025:KER:93973
WPC.No.40506/25 2
2 BALAN C.,S/O.CHAMIYAR, PULLANIKKAD HOUSE,
CHIMBUKKAD P.O, KUTHANUR, PALAKKAD (DT),
PIN - 678 721.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:93973
WPC.No.40506/25 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a Government of India undertaking and is engaged in the field of general insurance. The challenge raised in this writ petition is against Ext.P5 award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalath for Public Utility Services, Kozhikode. The said original petition was submitted by the respondents herein, being aggrieved by the denial of claim made by them, seeking the benefit of personal accident coverage in respect of Ext.P1 insurance policy issued by the petitioner in the name of 2nd respondent herein.
2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:
In respect of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL- 49B/0752, the petitioner had issued a policy, which contained a compulsory personal accident coverage for the owner-driver. The vehicle met with an accident while the son of the 2 nd respondent was driving the vehicle and consequent to the injuries sustained, the said person died. In the light of the 2025:KER:93973 WPC.No.40506/25 4 coverage for the personal accident, the 2 nd respondent submitted a claim, which was not entertained by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the 2nd respondent herein filed original petition before the Permanant Lok Adalath (for Public Utility Services), Kozhikode.
3. The petitioner, on receipt of notice in the said original petition, filed Ext.P4 written statement, contending that the coverage under the personal accident is only applicable in respect of the registered owner of the vehicle, who was riding the vehicle at the relevant time. According to the petitioner, the same cannot be extended to any other driver who is not the registered owner of the vehicle. However, rejecting the said contention, Ext.P5 order was passed by the Permanent Lok Adalath and this writ petition is filed challenging the said order.
4. I have heard Sri.Lakshmnan T.J, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in view of the stipulation contained in GR.36 of Indian 2025:KER:93973 WPC.No.40506/25 5 Motor Tariff issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), the personal accident coverage is applicable only to the owner-driver, which means the regisrtered owner who sustained injuries while driving the said vehicle. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in United India Insurance Company v. Harjit Kaur and Another [F.A.O.No.4623 of 2014].
6. I have examined the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As far as the issue raised by the petitioner is concerned, the said question is already considered by this Court in Kunjila v. Mary [2024 KHC Online 219], in which, after taking note of the observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi and Another v. United India Insurance Company and Another [(2020) 2 SCC 550], it was observed that, if the policy contains personal accident coverage for the owner-driver, benefit of the same can be extended to the claimants in a petition under Section 163A, where the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased driver 2025:KER:93973 WPC.No.40506/25 6 who was driving the vehicle with the permission of the owner. Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to distinguish the said judgment, pointing out that, as far as the said decision is concerned, the same was passed in an application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, whereas, in this case, it was passed under the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in Kunjila (supra), a decision contrary to the contention raised by the insurance company was taken in view of the fact that, in the said case, the insurance company raised a contention against the maintainability of the application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, filed at the instance of the legal heirs of the driver, who died in an accident, on the ground that, the said driver while driving the vehicle with the permission of the registered owner of the vehicle, had stepped into the shoes of the registered owner. Therefore, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in view of the said contention, the claim of the party respondents were accepted in 2025:KER:93973 WPC.No.40506/25 7 the said case, by observing that, after taking such a stand with regard to the question of maintainability of Section 163A, insurance company cannot take a different stand, when it comes to the question of the personal accident coverage. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the position in this case is completely different, as the matter was decided by the Permanant Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services and not in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
7. However, on going through the observations made in Kunjila (supra), even though the said decision was taken in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, in view of the categorical observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi (supra), a different view cannot be taken in the matter of applying the said principles in this case. It was observed in Ramkhiladi's case (supra) at paragraph No.5.8 as follows:
"However, at the same time, even as per the contract of insurance, in case of personal accident the owner-driver is entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh.
2025:KER:93973 WPC.No.40506/25 8 Therefore, the deceased, as observed hereinabove, who would be in the shoes of the owner shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1 lakh, even as per the contract of insurance......"
8. Thus, it was noticed by this court in Kunjila's case (supra) that, the Honourable Supreme Court, after interpreting the clauses in the policy held that, the person who stepped into the shoes of the owner would also be entitled to get the coverage of personal accident.
9. As far as the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court, rendered in Harjit Kaur (supra) relied on by the petitioner is concerned, even though a different view is taken by the said Court, I am of the view that since this Court has already taken a decision in Kunjila (supra), which is contrary to the decision of High Court of Punjab and Haryana, this Court is bound to follow the decision in Kunjila (supra). It is also a relevant aspect to notice in this case that, the person who was driving the vehicle was none other than the son of the registered owner.
10. It is also to be noted that, in view of the observations 2025:KER:93973 WPC.No.40506/25 9 made by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ningamma and Another v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd [2009 KHC 5046] and Ramkhiladi (supra) the respondents herein would not be in a position to seek any compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the only compensation that can be claimed by the respondents here, is under the personal accident coaverage in the said policy. The honourable Supreme Court in Ramkhiladi (supra) specifically took note of the said aspect and held that, going by the provisions in the insurance policy, the compulsory personal accident coverage could be extended to the driver/person, who was driving the vehicle with the knowledge and consent of the registered owner, as he stepped into the shoes of the owner.
11. Thus, I do not find any justifiable reason, not to follow the said decision and to take a different view, merely because of the reason that the proceeding, which is the subject matter of this case, has arisen under the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and not in the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. More over, such a distinction cannot be possibly 2025:KER:93973 WPC.No.40506/25 10 be drawn, as what is relevant, is the application of the principle of stepping into the shoes of the owner, as held in Kunjila (supra) and Ramkhiladi (supra).
In such circumstances, I do not find any justifiable reason to entertain this writ petition and to interfere with the Ext P5 award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Kozhikode. Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE DG/5.12.25 2025:KER:93973 WPC.No.40506/25 11 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 40506 OF 2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MOTOR CYCLE/ SCOOTER LIABILITY ONLY POLICY NO.3004023122P112613149 FOR THE PERIOD FROM 03/03/2023 TO 02/03/2024 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED 19/12/2024 Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30/10/2024 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT, KOZHIKODE IN OP NO. 115/2024 Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 17/03/2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT, KOZHIKODE IN OP. NO.
115/2024Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 31/07/2025 IN OP NO. 115/2024 PASSED BY THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT, KOZHIKODE