Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 36563
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.HEMA, P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD – Appellant
Versus
KOONERI VEETTIL SIVADASAN – Respondent
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL 706/2005
An insurer is not liable for compensation if there is no valid insurance policy in effect at the time of the accident.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles - Negligence - Motor Vehicles Act Section List - The court analyzed Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing the insurer's liability based on the validity of the insurance policy at the time of the accident and concluded that the insurer was not liable for compensation due to lack of valid insurance.
Fact of the Case:
The injured party filed a claim for compensation following an accident involving two buses. He suffered severe injuries, leading to his 100% disability and subsequent death, causing his legal heirs to continue the claim against the insurers and vehicle owners.
Issues: Whether the appellant insurer is liable for compensating the claimants regarding the accident involving the bus, based on the insurance coverage at the time of the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellant insurer was not liable for compensation as the vehicle was not covered by insurance at the time of the accident, which was confirmed by evidence presented in the written statements.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed, and the order directing the insurer to pay compensation is set aside.
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~
Hema, J.
A petition was filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ('The Tribunal' for short) by injured under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act ('The Act' for short), claiming a total amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation from the driver, owner and Insurance Company of two vehicles who were shown as respondents 1 to 6 in the claim petition.
2. According to the averments in the petition, the accident occurred, on 24.8.1996, at about 2.20 p.m., while the injured was proceeding in a bus bearing registration no.KRC- 7507 on a public road. When the bus reached the place of accident, another bus bearing registration no.KL-13/A-8848 came from the opposite side and hit against the bus in which the injured was driving, as a result of which he sustained injuries. He was hospitalized and treated in the hospital for the injuries sustained.
3. The incident occurred due to alleged negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the driving on the part of the driver of the bus bearing registration no.KL-13-A/8848. The injured was working as a coolie. He became 100% disabled. He was aged 60 years and he was having a monthly income of Rs.3,000/-. During the pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal, the injured died and his legal heirs were impleaded as additional petitioners 2 to 8.
4. The driver, owner and the insurer of vehicle No.KRC-
7507 are respondents 1 to 3 in the claim petition and the driver, owner and the insurer of the other vehicle No. KL-13-A/8845 are impleaded as respondents 4 to 6. The 1st respondent, driver of the alleged offending vehicle bearing though entered appearance before the Tribunal did not file written statement. The 2nd respondent, the owner of the said bus filed a written statement admitting the incident. But it was contended that the vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Company on the date of accident and the Insurance Company has to pay the compensation.
5. The 3rd respondent (appellant) in the claim petition which is the insurer filed a written statement denying the averments in the petition and contended that the vehicle KRC- 7507 was not insured with appellant. The policy was obtained only on 25.8.1996 after the incident occurred. The 2nd respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle paid premium on 25.8.1996 by way of cheque but it was dishonoured. As such there was no insurance for the said vehicle at the time of accident, it is contended. The 3rd respondent (appellant) therefore denied liability to indemnify the 1st respondent and the
2nd respondent.
6. The 4th and the 5th respondent in the claim petition who are the driver and owner of the other bus, did not file any written statement though they entered appearance. The 6th respondent filed a written statement admitting the policy in respect of vehicle no.KRC-7507. Additional written statement was also filed by the 6th respondent. It is contended in the additional written statement that vehicle bearing registration no. KRC-7507 was insured with Oriental Insurance Company and the number of the policy is also stated in the written statement. It is also stated therein that the said vehicle was not insured with the 3rd respondent (appellant). Various other contentions were also raised in respect of the negligence etc. According to the
6th respondent, the driver of the vehicle KRC-7507 was rash and negligent in his driving and hence the 6th respondent is not liable to pay compensation.
7. PW1 was examined. Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claimants. Respondents did not adduce any evidence. The learned Tribunal on consideration of the evidence found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles. The Tribunal also found that the claimants are entitled to get an amount of Rs.2,24,000/- as compensation from all the respondents. However, the 3rd respondent being the insurer of bus No.KRC-7507 was ordered to pay 50% of the compensation and the 6th respondent bei
