High Court Kerala High Court

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd vs Baby on 16 November, 2009

Kerala High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd vs Baby on 16 November, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 1509 of 2009()


1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. BABY, S/O.VELAN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. VARMAN CARRYING COMPANY,

3. ANPARASAN, S/O.SAVIER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)

                For Respondent  :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN

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

 Dated :16/11/2009

 O R D E R
                     M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
               = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
           M.A.C.A. NOs. 1509 and 1510 OF 2009
             = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
        Dated this the 16th day of November, 2009.

                      J U D G M E N T

Both these appeals are preferred by the Oriental

Insurance Company Ltd. who is the 3rd respondent in O.P.

(MV)Nos.175/02 and 177/02 of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Palakkad. The insurance company has challenged

the finding on the ground that the cheque issued towards the

payment of premium was dishonoured and there has been

proper intimation to the owner as well as the RTO thereby

entitling the insurance company to get exonerated from the

liability. The Tribunal considered this point and held that

though documents are produced for the issuance of the

cheque, the dishonour of the cheque, nothing was produced

before the Tribunal to show that it has been intimated to the

owner as well the Road Transport Authorities. The learned

Tribunal had referred to the decision of the Apex Court in

Deddappa v. National Insurance Company Ltd. 2008 (1) KLT

296(SC). In that case the Hon’ble Apex Court held suppose

M.A.C.A. Nos.1509 & 1510/09
-:2:-

a policy is issued and the cheque is dishonoured before the

cancellation of the policy then if the insurance company had

intimated the owner and the concerned authority then it will

get exonerated from the liability.

2. Here the witness of the insurance company as

RW1 would depose that notice has been issued by registered

post. Except the mere ipsi dexit of the Manger no acceptable

evidence is forthcoming and therefore the Tribunal was not

inclined to accept it which could have been proved by

documents by the insurance company. Learned counsel for

the insurance company in fairness submits that there would

be documents and if an opportunity is given he can establish

it before the Court. I feel an opportunity can be given to all

concerned to consider the issue by producing necessary

documents. Therefore the awards under challenge are set

aside so far as it relates to the liability of the insurance

company, the right of the claimant to get it from the

insurance company and the interse dispute between the

insurance company and the owner. Parties are also

M.A.C.A. Nos.1509 & 1510/09
-:3:-

permitted to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in

support of their respective contentions and then the Tribunal

is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

The insurance company after appearing before the Tribunal

shall take out notice to the persons whose junction is

peremptory for the proper disposal of the matter. Parties are

directed to appear before the Tribunal on 16.12.2009.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

ul/-