Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 46776
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Shoba Annamma Eapen, J
VINOD – Appellant
Versus
SHERLYMOL @ THANKACHI – Respondent
MACA NO. 2164 OF 2014|MACA NO. 297 OF 2015|OP(MV) NO.822 OF 2003
For the Appellants/Petitioners: DR.V.N.SANKARJEE, SRI.S.SIDHARDHAN
For the Respondents: SMT.C.K.LEKHAMMA, SHRI.N.S.NAJEEB, SHRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN, SMT.MARY JOHN, DR.V.N.SANKARJEE, SRI.S.SIDHARDHAN, SMT.M.SUSEELA, SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI
Insurance companies must substantiate liability exemptions in claims, or they cannot be exonerated from compensatory duties.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Liability Insurance - The insurance company improperly exonerated from liability due to failure to substantiate premium payments for additional risks. (Paras 6, 7)
(B) Compensation Quantum - The court recalculated compensation based on updated notional income and loss of dependency principles from precedents. (Paras 8, 9)
(C) Appeal Remand - The matter remanded to the tribunal for liability determination regarding awarded compensation. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
Two appeals arose from the same tribunal award for a motorcycle accident where compensation of ₹3,35,000/- was initially granted. Claimants contended for higher compensation and questioned insurer liability.
Findings of Court:
The court modified compensation to ₹7,93,500/- with interest, allowing additional amounts under various heads and directed fresh evidence on liability determination.
Issues: The main issues included liability under the insurance policy and the adequacy of compensation awarded.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the insurer’s failure to demonstrate the reason for premium collection precluded exoneration from liability, reinforcing plaintiff rights based on compensation standards.
Result: Appeals partly allowed;
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of facts leading to the appeal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. tribunal's initial compensation award details. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments regarding insurance liability and policy interpretation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's observations on evidence and liability. (Para 7) |
| 5. claimants' arguments for compensation enhancement. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. final order on compensation and remand. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT
Since these two appeals arise from the very same award dated 31.03.2009 in O.P.(MV) No.822 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, these appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this judgment. M.A.C.A.No.2164 of 2014 is filed by the appellant/1st respondent(owner) in the O.P challenging the liability fastened upon them to pay the compensation awarded by the tribunal, whereas M.A.C.A.No.297 of 2015 is filed by the appellants/claimants 1-3 in the O.P, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
2. According to the claimants, on 05.06.2003 at about 07.45 pm, while the deceased was pillion riding in the motorcycle bearing registration no. KL-8/C - 388, driven by the 2nd respondent, when reached the place of accident, the motorcycle skidded and turned down. As a result of the accident, the deceased fell down to the road and sustained very severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the next day. The claimants approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹ 6,00,000/-.
3. The 1st respondent, the owner of the offending vehicle, filed a written statement contending that he was not the owner of the offending vehicle and that the vehicle was sold to the additional 4th respondent and alleged misjoinder of parties. The 2nd respondent, driver and the additional 4th respondent remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3rd respondent, insurer, filed a written statement admitting the policy but disputing the liability to pay compensation. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A10 and Ext.B1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹ 3,35,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs from respondents 1 and 2. The respondents 3 and 4 were exonerated from the liability.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/owner and the learned standing counsel for the insurance company.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the owner submitted that the tribunal has exonerated the insurance company from the liability on the ground that the policy was an Act only policy. A copy of the policy was produced as Ext.A9 as well as Ext.B1. The learned counsel drew attention of this Court to Ext.B1 policy and submitted that it is not merely an Act only policy, an amount of ₹ 160 was paid towards extra loading. Since the vehicle involved was a two-wheeler, the additional loading of premium shall be treated as coverage for the pillion rider. Hence, the learned counsel for the owner submitted that the insurance company cannot be exonerated from the liability to pay the amount awarded by the tribunal.
6. Per Contra, the learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the premium towards extra loading was collected on account of amounts paid in the previous years towards claims raised by the owner of the vehicle. In the written statement, the insurance company contended that the policy is an Act only policy but no contention was raised regarding the premium received towards extra loading. The learned standing counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Alappuzha v. Thilakan and Another [2021 (4) KHC 254] , wherein this Court had held that the amount towards extra loading cannot be held as premium collected in addition to cover risk of third parties such as pillion rider and it may have been collected to compen
