High Court Kerala High Court

K.R.Sreedharan vs Sunny on 18 January, 2008

Kerala High Court
K.R.Sreedharan vs Sunny on 18 January, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MFA No. 324 of 2002(B)


1. K.R.SREEDHARAN, S/O. RAMAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SUNNY, S/O. JOHN,
                       ...       Respondent

2. P.V.MATHAI, S/O. VARGHESE,

3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB(SR)SC INSURANCE(B/O)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :18/01/2008

 O R D E R
                              J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ.

                                --------------------------------------

                           M.F.A.Nos.324 and 339 of 2002

                                -------------------------------------

                                Dated 18th January, 2008


                                         JUDGMENT

Ko
shy,J.

Appellant in these cases is the owner of a private jeep which

was involved in an accident. Legal representatives of a deceased

passenger and an injured passenger claimed compensation. The vehicle

was covered by an `Act policy’ and passengers were not covered.

Insurance company raised two contentions. First contention of the

insurance company was that it has no liability as it was an `Act policy’

and it is not liable to pay compensation for a gratuitous passenger in a

private vehicle. Secondly it was contended that the vehicle was

overloaded and there is violation of policy conditions. According to the

insurance company, without taxi permit the jeep was conducting trips

inviting passengers to travel. The Supreme Court in United India

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh (2006 (2) KLT 884) held that

passengers in a private vehicle, unless covered specifically, are not liable

to be covered by the policy of insurance under an `Act policy’. In the

above circumstances, in view of the Apex Court decision, we are unable

to accept the contention of the appellant that insurance company should

be asked to pay the amount and set aside the direction of the Tribunal

MFA.Nos.324 & 339/2002 2

that after depositing the insurance company can recover it from the

appellant. With regard to the quantum of compensation, we are of

the opinion that only just and reasonable compensation was granted.

Only the amount deposited by the insurance company can be

recovered from the appellant.

Both the appeals are dismissed.

J.B.KOSHY

JUDGE

K.HEMA

JUDGE

tks