IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

WEDNESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 13792 OF 2024 PETITIONER:

GOPAKUMAR C, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O CHELLAPPAN, THEKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE, NATTAKAM VILLAGE, PALLAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN – 688007.

BY ADVS.

SHERRY J. THOMAS JOEMON ANTONY ANTONY NILTON REMELO RESPONDENTS:

1 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER SAATH HUB, KOCHI DIVISIONAL OFFICE, VEETIYIL CHAMBERS, PALLIMUKKU, RAVIPURAM, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682016.

2 MARUTHI SUZUKI INSURANCE BROKING PVT. LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, TUTUS TOWER, NH 47-BYE PASS, SERVICE RD, SONIA NAGAR, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, KERALA, PIN – 682024.

3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.

4 THE RTO OFFICE OF THE RTO, KOTTAYAM, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN – 686002.

BY ADVS.

GEORGE A.CHERIAN ANTO THOMAS JAISON MATHEW(K/002873/2023)

GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)(G-81) P.S.SYAMKUTTAN(K/196/2011)

SRI. P.S.APPU, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT The petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle bearing registration No.KL 05 AV 2118. According to the petitioner, the vehicle had a valid insurance with the 1^st respondent Company for the period from 04.12.2023 to 03.12.2024. The petitioner claims that the vehicle met with an accident on 01.01.2024 while the petitioner was driving the vehicle. According to the petitioner, the validity of the driving license of the petitioner issued by the State of Kerala bearing No.5/1473/1987 was to expire on 14.11.2023. It is submitted that on 09.11.2023, the petitioner had applied for a renewal of license. It is submitted that when a claim was made on the 1^st respondent Insurance Company for payment of the amounts in connection with the repair of the vehicle following the accident, a question has been raised as to whether the petitioner had a valid license on the date of the accident.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts on the basis of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company v. Swaram Singh and Others [2004 KHC 314] that the license of the petitioner should be deemed to be valid on the date of the accident.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company submits that the Company had only requested for certain details from the petitioner and the claim of the petitioner has not been finally repudiated till today (19.03.2025). It is submitted that even before the claim was formally repudiated by the Company, the petitioner is before this Court by filing the above writ petition.

4. Having heard the counsel as above, I am of the view that since the Insurance Company has not yet taken a decision as to whether the claim made by the petitioner has to be repudiated, at least at first instance, the matter has to be considered by the competent authority of the 1^st respondent Company. I have no reason to believe that any claim of the petitioner including the one raised on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Swaram Singh (supra) will not be considered by the insurance Company while deciding whether the claim of the petitioner should be honoured or not.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the competent authority of the 1^st respondent to take a decision on the claim raised by the petitioner also having due regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Swaram Singh (supra) and considering the reply submitted by the petitioner as Ext.P6. The competent authority shall also afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing orders on the claim made by the petitioner. All contentions raised in the writ petition are left open. A decision shall be taken as directed above, within a period of one month from the da