SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 59032

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J
BINDHU VARGHESE – Appellant
Versus
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. – Respondent
MACA NO. 346 OF 2022 | OPMV NO.511 OF 2017



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.N. Santhosh
For the Respondents: John Joseph Vettikkad

Compensation received under compulsory personal accident coverage cannot be deducted from motor accident claims, as it operates independently under statutory provisions.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Compulsory Personal Accident Coverage - Enhancement of compensation sought by claimants following the death of the deceased due to an accident. The tribunal awarded Rs. 18,51,300/- with a deduction of Rs. 2,00,000/- for personal accident coverage received by claimants. The appeal addresses whether such deduction is lawful based on statutory and contractual principles.(Paras 1-20)

(B) Legal Principles - Compulsory personal accident coverage is a mandatory social security measure and should not be deducted from compensation as it serves a different legal function from tort claims. The correlation between received amount and loss must be established for any deduction to apply.(Paras 10, 12, 20)

Facts of the case:
The deceased died in a motor vehicle accident caused by another driver's rashness; the insurance company contested the compensation amount, prompting this appeal.

Findings of Court:
The tribunal’s deduction of the personal accident claim was deemed unlawful and the compensation was to be increased by Rs. 2,00,000/- plus interest.

Issues: The core issues are on the legality of deducting personal accident coverage received from the compensation and the nature of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that sums received under personal accident coverage cannot be deducted from statutory compensation under MV Act, as they pertain to different contractual obligations.

Result: Appeal allowed; compensation enhanced.

Table of Content
1. liability for compensation due to a motor accident. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments regarding the deduction of personal accident coverage. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. court's reasoning on the status of personal accident coverage vs. mediclaim. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. legal conclusions regarding the treatment of personal accident coverage. (Para 20)

JUDGMENT

The claimants in O.P.(MV).No. 511 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, have preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the tribunal on account of the death of one Abraham Varghese, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 27.12.2016.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

On 27.12.2016, while the deceased, Sri. Abraham Varghese was driving an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-03-AA-2959, through Pathanamthitta - Kozhenchery public road, and when reached at Elathoor junction, another autorikshaw bearing registration No.KL-03/S/4523, driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, and at an excessive speed, hit the rear side of the autorishaw driven by Sri. Abraham Varghese. Due to the impact of the hit, Abraham Varghese sustained grievous head injuries, and he succumbed to the same on the way to the hospital.

3. The owner-cum driver of the autorikshaw bearing registration No.KL-03/S/4523 was arrayed as the 1st respondent, whereas the insurer was arrayed as the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, the insurance company, contested the petition by filing a written statement primarily disputing the quantum of compensation awarded, despite admitting insurance coverage for the autorikshaw involved in the accident. In the written statement, the 2nd respondent took a specific contention that if the claimants had received any amount as compensation under the personal accident coverage from the insurer of the deceased’s vehicle, the said amount shall be deducted from the total compensation payable in the present claim.

4. During the trial, the 1st petitioner, who is none other than the wife of the deceased, was examined as PW1 and produced documentary evidence marked as Exts. A1 to A16. From the side of the respondents, no evidence whatsoever was produced.

5. Upon appreciation of evidence on record, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the autorikshaw bearing registration No.KL-03/S/4523 by the 1st respondent, and being the insurer, the 2nd respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. The compensation was quantified at Rs.18,51,300/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation and proportionate costs. However, the tribunal, while arriving at the said compensation, deducted an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, the sum received by the claimants under the personal accident coverage from the insurer of the autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-03-AA-2959, which was owned and driven by the deceased at the time of the accident. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, particularly by the deduction of the said Rs.2,00,000/-, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount.

6. Heard Sri. A.N. Santhosh, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri.John Joseph Vettikkad, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the tribunal erred in deducting the sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, which was received by the appellants under the compulsory personal accident coverage attached to the insurance policy of the autorikshaw owned and driven by the deceased at the time of the accident. According to the counsel, the said amount was paid to the appellants pursuant to a separate and independent contract between the deceased and the insurer, and hence the tortfeasor or his insurer would not be entitled to get benefit of the said c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top