Johny vs K.U.Kripal on 18 September, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 485 of 2003(P)


1. JOHNY S/O. PAILY, MOOLANCHERRY HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. K.U.KRIPAL, KAMALAYAM, PERUVARAM,
                       ...       Respondent

2. GIREESH O.P. S/O. PAPPU,

3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR)

                For Respondent  :SRI.JOHN KOSHY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :18/09/2008

 O R D E R
                         M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
                         --------------------------
                      M.A.C.A. No. 485 OF 2003
                            ---------------------
             Dated this the 18thday of September, 2008

                              JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Paravur, in OP(MV) 894/00.

The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,850/- with 9% interest and

directed respondents 1 & 2 to pay the entire amount. It also

exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability on the ground

that there was no valid permit for the autorickshaw. It is challenging

that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal.

2. Heard the counsel appearing for both sides. The two

fold contentions raised by the Insurance Company are that there was

no valid driving licence as well as valid permit to ply the

autorickshaw. As far as driving licence is concerned, it was held that

since no steps were taken to prove the absence of driving licence,

that contention was negatived. But so far as it related to the permit,

an application was filed for summoning the permit. In spite of the

same, the owner did not produce the same and so the court held that

there was no evidence to prove the existence of a valid permit and

MACA No. 485/03
2

therefore totally exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability.

The claimant who was only a passenger in the autorickshaw is

entitled to get compensation. Absence of a permit would only

amount to a breach of policy condition. When there is only a breach

of policy condition, the Insurance Company is bound to pay the

amount to the claimant and get it reimbursed from the owner.

Therefore the award under challenge is modified and the

Insurance Company is directed to pay compensation to the claimant

and on satisfaction of the same, the Insurance Company can

recover it from the owner of the autorickshaw.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps

MACA No. 485/03
3