Shantly Augustin vs Shalvi on 16 December, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 270 of 2004()


1. SHANTLY AUGUSTIN, S/O.AUGUSTHY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SHALVI, S/O.AUGUSTHY, POTHANICKATTU
                       ...       Respondent

2. JAYAKUMAR, KANDOOR HOUSE, EDAPPALLY

3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.MADHU

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID

 Dated :16/12/2008

 O R D E R
                  C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
                       HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
                 --------------------------------------------
                     M.A.C.A. No. 270 OF 2004
                 --------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 16th day of December, 2008

                               JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair,J.

Appeal is filed challenging the order of the MACT dismissing

claim petition filed by the appellant for compensation for the injury

sustained by him in a road accident. We have heard counsel appearing

for the appellant and standing counsel appearing for the insurance

company. MACT, based on Ext.B1, FI Statement furnished by the

appellant to the police, found that he was the registered owner of the

bike permitted to be driven by his brother, who only had licence to

drive the same. The appellant as pillion rider sustained injuries on

account of capsize of the bike. Alleging negligence on the rider-

brother, appellant claimed compensation which was turned down by the

MACT on the ground that appellant, as registered owner, is not entitled

to compensation under an Act policy. Besides this, counsel for the

insurance company submitted that by virtue of decision of Supreme

MACA : 270/04
2

Court in TILAK SINGH’s case, gratuitous passenger in a bike is not

entitled to claim compensation from the insurer under an Act policy.

Even though counsel contended that appellant was not registered owner

at the time of the accident, no document is produced to prove his claim

even in the appeal before us. Moreover appellant himself admitted in

the FI statement given before police that he was the registered owner of

the bike at the time of the accident. In the circumstances, we do not

find any ground to interfere with the order of the MACT. Appeal is

consequently dismissed.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.

(HARUN-UL-RASHID)
Judge.

kk

MACA : 270/04
3