Kamaludeen vs Shahabudeen on 14 December, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 2238 of 2007()


1. KAMALUDEEN, S/O.BADARUDEEN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SHAHABUDEEN, SHAFIK MANZIL, KUTTICHIRA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SHAJAHAN, S/O.MYTHEENKUNJU RAWTHER,

3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.PRATHEESH.P

                For Respondent  :SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH

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

 Dated :14/12/2009

 O R D E R
                       M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
                   ...........................................
                    M.A.C.A.No.2238 OF 2007
                   .............................................
           Dated this the 14th day of December, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal preferred against the award of the

Claims Tribunal, Kollam in OP(MV)No.1584/2001.The

claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident

and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs.50,540/=

and the insurance company has been exonerated from the

liability and the 1st respondent is made liable for the

amount. It is against the quantum, the claimant has come up

in appeal.

2. The owner had also entered before this Court and

had shown me a copy of the policy which is a comprehensive

policy. But the policy is not readable with respect to the

number. But if the policy is a comprehensive/package policy,

in the light of the circular issued by the Insurance Regulatory

and Development Authority, the insurance company cannot

take the defence of non coverage because in the circular it

is made clear that the insured’s liability in respect of

occupants carried in a private car and a pillion rider carried

: 2 :
M.A.C.A.No.2238 OF 2007

in a two wheeler is covered under the standard motor

package policy. So, this is a matter which requires

consideration. Over and above this, two decisions of this

Court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd.v.

Hydrose (2008(3) KLT 778)and in Mathew v. Shaji Mathew

(2009 (3) KLT 813) also throw light on this subject. So, the

matter requires consideration so far as it relates to the

liability of the insurance company is concerned. As the

matter has to go back, I give an opportunity to the claimant

to put forward any new evidence available or produce

materials before the court to show about the inadequacy of

compensation. That also can be considered by the Tribunal.

3. In the result, the MACA is allowed and the award

under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back

to the Tribunal for the purpose of deciding whether the

insurance company is liable and whether the claimant is

entitled to get the enhanced compensation. For this purpose,

all concerned be permitted to adduce documentary as well

as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions

and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The

: 3 :
M.A.C.A.No.2238 OF 2007

parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on

18.01.2010

Disposed of accordingly.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE

cl

: 4 :
M.A.C.A.No.2238 OF 2007