Insurers must prove coverage when liability is contested, and courts have the discretion to remand cases for further proceedings.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the third respondent/ insurer of the offending car involved in the accident, challenging the award passed by the tribunal, which imposed liability on the appellant – insurer to pay the compensation amount to the claimant. The respondents herein are the claimant and respondents 1 and 2 before the tribunal.

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

08.10.2008, at about 10.00 a.m., while the claimant was walking along the Koduvally – Wayanad public road, a car bearing registration No.KL-57-5262 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the claimant and as a result, the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹1,00,000/-.

3. Though notice was issued to the first respondent, the owner of the offending vehicle, remained absent and was set ex parte before the tribunal. The second and third respondents, the driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle respectively, entered appearance and filed written statements. The second respondent filed a written statement contending that there was no negligence on his part and also he was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The third respondent - insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident occurred due to negligence attributed on the part of the second respondent and the claimant was awarded a sum of ₹29,800/-, which is rounded to ₹30,000/-, as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the third respondent being the insurer. Challenging the liability to pay the award amount, the appellant – insurer has come up before this court with this appeal.

4. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company. Though notice was served on the second respondent - owner, he chose not to appear before this court.

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that, although in the written statement, it was contended that the policy is admitted, it was noticed that it was a mistake. Immediately an additional written statement was filed denying the existence of the insurance policy. The same was filed prior to the passing of the award. It was further submitted that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, passed the impugned award dated 23.12.2013 without considering the additional written statement filed by the insurance company. Thereafter, the insurance company filed a review petition seeking review of the impugned award; however, the said review petition was also dismissed.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant, however, submitted that though the accident was in the year 2008, no amount has been received by them so far.

7. On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal had considered only the written statement filed by the appellant/insurance company. However, on a perusal of the trial court records, it is evident that an additional written statement was filed by the appellant–insurer on 12.09.2013 contending as follows: ‘Upon verification of the relevant records, it came to the notice of the insurance company that as on the date of the accident, i.e., 08.10.2008, the vehicle was not insured with the appellant–insurer. The police had registered a petty case bearing No. 2859/2008 against the registered owner of the vehicle for permitting a person to drive the vehicle without a valid insurance policy in the said vehicle’.