High Court Kerala High Court

United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Saramma on 10 September, 2009

Kerala High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Saramma on 10 September, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 2071 of 2008()


1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SARAMMA, W/O MATHAI,
                       ...       Respondent

2. BABY T.M., S/O MATHAI,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL

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

 Dated :10/09/2009

 O R D E R
                      M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
               = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                 M.A.C.A. NO. 2071 OF 2008
              = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
      Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009.

                       J U D G M E N T

This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in O.P.(MV)1022/04.

The award was passed by the Tribunal on 2.2.07. Now the

contention the learned counsel for the insurance company

wants to canvass before me is that the claimant being a

pillion rider and as the policy issued is only an Act only policy

he is not covered by the terms of the policy and therefore

the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured.

It has to be borne in mind that the insurance company has

filed a written statement. It has not raised any contention

regarding its exemption from liability. Not only that the

Tribunal has referred to these factors in paragraph 10 of the

award. The Tribunal has very clearly stated that the

insurance company has admitted that there is a full coverage

policy issued to the offending vehicle. In turn the Tribunal

further held that there is no contention for the insurance

M.A.C.A. 2071 OF 2008
-:2:-

company that the pillion rider is not covered. So unless and

until there is a contention to the effect regarding the

exemption of liability the Court cannot consider that question

at all and therefore I cannot find fault with the Tribunal in

arriving at a decision that the insurance company is liable to

pay the amount. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and the

same is dismissed.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

ul/-