Kerala High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Kailasan @ Sunil on 8 July, 2011
Author: R. Basant
Bench: R.Basant, N.K.Balakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1677 of 2010()
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KAILASAN @ SUNIL,
... Respondent
2. O.N.RADHAKRISHNAN, KORVANTHURUTHU,
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.N.T.NANDAKUMAR (PARAVUR)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
Dated :08/07/2011
O R D E R
R. BASANT &
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------
M.A.C.A. No.1677 of 2010
------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of July 2011
J U D G M E N T
R. Basant, J.
The appellant/insurer challenges the direction issued to the appellant/insurer in the impugned award that he must satisfy the claim of the claimants. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid licence at the relevant time and hence, the appellant/insurer is, at any rate entitled to recover the amount from the insured if the same is paid to satisfy the award.
2. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/ registered owner submits that this contention is not any more relevant, at any rate as the claim for enhancement filed by the claimants has been disposed of by another M.A.C.A. No.1677 of 2010 -: 2 :- bench of this Court by judgment dated 8.6.2011 in M.A.C.A.No.903/2010 directing the 3rd respondent to pay further amount by way of compensation in addition to the amount already awarded. That appeal was disposed of by judgment dated 8.6.2011 in M.A.C.A.No.903/2010. This appeal preferred on 1.7.2010 after the disposal of the said appeal is at any rate not maintainable, submits counsel for respondent/claimants. The present contention disputing the liability of the Insurance Company having not been raised before the bench which dealt with M.A.C.A.No.903/2010 and the said bench having already directed the appellant to pay further amounts, we find no substance in the contentions now raised before us.
3. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/owner has a further submission that on merit also, the impugned order is absolutely justifiable. We do not think it necessary to go into the matter in any greater detail, a Division Bench of this Court having already confirmed the liability of the M.A.C.A. No.1677 of 2010 -: 3 :- appellant to pay enhanced amounts in addition to the amount due under the award. We are satisfied that this appeal now only deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this M.A.C.A. is dismissed.
R. BASANT, JUDGE.
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
Jvt