Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2411
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.
Shaji, S/o. Ramakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
T.J. Varghese @ Pappachan and Ors. – Respondents
MACA No. 181 of 2014, MACA No. 486 of 2014
Decided On : 13-06-2025
For the Appellant : Sri. K.M. Kurian, Shri. P. Vijayakumar.
For the Respondents: Sri. P.C. Haridas, Shri. P. Jacob Mathew, Shri. B. Harrylal.
Insurance company cannot deny liability for compensation on grounds of alleged suppression of material facts, as acceptance of the vehicle's registration was documented.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Liability and Compensation - Claims for compensation arising out of motor vehicle accident - Insurance company exonerated from liability by Tribunal due to alleged suppression of facts, ruled unsustainable by High Court. (Paras 6, 10, 11)
(B) Legal Principles - The liability of the insurance company cannot be contested based on suppression claims if the policy was issued by them knowingly; alteration of the vehicle's registration from motor cab to private vehicle was appropriately documented. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sustained serious injuries in an accident caused by a negligent driver. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,49,000/- as compensation, which included various heads but exonerated the insurance company from liability.
Findings of Court:
The court modified the Tribunal’s award, holding the insurer liable and refixing compensation to Rs.2,68,700/- with interest at 7%.
Issues: Whether the exoneration of the insurance company was justified; the basis for determining the compensation amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The alteration of vehicle registration was duly notified, and the insurance company was deemed liable for compensation as the issuance of the policy accepted all credentials provided by the owner.
Result: Appeals allowed in part, liability imposed on insurer, and compensation increased to Rs.2,68,700/-.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case background and initial claims (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. hearing of parties' arguments (Para 4 , 9) |
| 3. arguments regarding compensation and insurance liability (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's reasoning on insurance liability (Para 10) |
| 5. final compensation determination and order (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.
Since these two appeals arise from the very same award dated 09.09.2013 in O.P.(MV) No.377 of 2011 filed by the appellant/claimant on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, these appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this judgment. M.A.C.A.No.181 of 2014 is filed by the appellant/1st respondent, owner in the O.P seeking to set aside the award exonerating the insurer from the liability to pay compensation, whereas M.A.C.A.No.486 of 2014 is filed by the appellant/claimant in the O.P, seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal).
2. According to the petitioner/claimant, on 09.11.2010 at about 05.30 pm, while the petitioner was riding an autorickshaw, a jeep driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the petitioner has sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.2,35,000/-.
3. Respondents 1 and 2, owner and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively, entered appearance and filed a written statement disputing the maintainability of the petition. The 3rd respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and contending that the policy issued was a package policy. Before the tribunal, RW1 was examined. Exts.A1 to A9 and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of Rs.1,49,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs from the 1st respondent-owner. Challenging the award passed, the claimant as well as the owner has come up in appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ claimant, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/owner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company.
5. The learned counsel for the claimant claims enhancement mainly under the following heads :-
Notional income :- The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has taken an amount of Rs.5,000/- as the monthly income of the appellant. The learned counsel further submitted that even going by the judgment in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. [ 2011 (13) SCC 236 ], the monthly income of a coolie during the year 2010 will come to Rs.7,500/-. It is true that the claimant had claimed only an amount of Rs.5,000/- as the income. In order to award a just and reasonable compensation and also following the judgment in Ramachandrappa (supra), I am inclined to refix the income of the appellant as Rs.7,500/-.
Loss of earnings :- Since the notional monthly income is fixed at Rs.7,500/-, the total compensation payable under the head is recalculated thus: Rs.30,000/- (7,500x4). The tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- under the said head. Thus, there will be an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head loss of earnings.
Damage to clothing :- Although the claimant has claimed an amount of Rs.500 under the above head, the tribunal has not awarded any amount. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, I am inclined to grant an amount of Rs.500/- can be granted towards damage to clothing.
Bystander expenses :- The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the tribunal was awarded only an amount of Rs.3,000/- under the head bystander expenses. Since the accident was of the year 2010, I deem it appropriate to fix
