IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 2411 of 2009()
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RATNAKARAN, S/O. BHASKARAN,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. THANKAPPAN ASARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :18/06/2010
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M.A.C.A.No.2411 OF 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 18th day of June 2010
JUDGMENT
Basheer, J.
The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability to
indemnify the owner/insured of the vehicle on the appellant/insurance company.
2. Relevant facts may be briefly noticed:
3. A jeep belonging to the Police Department was involved in the accident
in question. Respondent No.1 herein, who suffered serious injuries in the
accident, claimed compensation on account of those injuries. The Tribunal, after
considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found that respondent
No.1 was entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,09,253/- with interest.
4. While considering the question of liability, the Tribunal noticed that the
appellant/insurance Company had issued an “Act only” policy in respect of the
vehicle. In other words, admittedly, the policy did not cover the passengers in the
jeep. Nevertheless the Tribunal proceeded to hold that the appellant/insurance
company would be liable to indemnify the owner/insured in as much as the
company knew that it was a departmental vehicle to be used to carry Police
personnel and the company cannot contend for the position that the passengers in
the jeep (police personnel) would not be covered by the policy. The reasoning of
the Tribunal was that since the insurer knew the purpose for which the vehicle
had been purchased by the department, the policy issued by the company should
be construed to cover the risk of the passengers, namely, the police personnel.
M.A.C.A.No.2411 OF 2009
:: 2 ::
5. We are afraid the above finding entered by the Tribunal is wholly
unsustainable. As has been mentioned earlier, there is no dispute that the policy
issued by the appellant in respect of the vehicle in question is only an “Act only”
policy. No additional premium was paid by the insured to cover the risk of the
passengers in the said vehicle. In that view of the matter, the insurance company
cannot be fastened with the liability to indemnify the insured.
6. The above claim petition was disposed of along with three other claim
petitions. The claimants are admittedly police constables. It is brought to our
notice that in respect of the award passed in two cases (MACA 2412/09 &
2428/09), this court has allowed the appeal filed by the insurance company and
exonerated it from the liability. In that view of the matter also, the award passed
by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. It is made clear that it will be open to
respondent No.1/claimant to realise the amount from respondents 2 and 3. The
amount, if any, deposited by the appellant shall be refunded to the insurance
company, if it has not already been disbursed.
The appeal is allowed.
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
jes