IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 892 of 2004()
1. ABDUL RASHEED, S/O.MOHAMMED SALI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RAJU, S/O.SASIDHARAN,
... Respondent
2. KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT,
3. RADHAMANI, W/O.LATE K.ANANDAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
For Respondent :SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :02/12/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN &
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
MACA No. 892 of 2004
------------------------------------
Dated, this the 2nd day of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
P.R. Raman, J.
Appellant was the applicant in OP(MV) 1838/1997 claiming
compensation for the damages sustained to the car owned by him. He
claimed an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- by way of damages. While the car
owned by the appellant, proceeded from south to north from National
Highway, a mini lorry on the opposite direction by overtaking another
vehicle entered wrong side and hit the front of the car and the accident
occurred attributing negligence on the part of the R2. R2 remained
exparte and hence negligence was proved against R2 on the available
evidence. The owner of the mini lorry was R1 in the Court below. The
vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent. But the 3rd respondent
resisted the claim contending that his liabilities limited to Rs.6,000/- as
per the statute.
2. The short question that arise for consideration is as to the
whether there is any wider coverage for making the 3rd respondent liable
full damages as claimed in the application. The Court below found that
only the statutory liability of amount Rs.6,000/- is to be paid by the
MACA No. 892 of 2004
2
insurer R3, in the absence of any evidence to show that there is wider
coverage for the full extent of damage sustained by the 3rd party.
3. PW4, the District Insurance Officer stated that though the
offending vehicle had coverage for own damage and 3rd party property
damage, he clarifies that full coverage for 3rd party property damage will
be obtained only if required premium is paid by the insured. But in this
case, the insured has paid only the premium for own damages. PW5, the
Assistant Manager of New India Insurance Company would say that the
reinsurance taken by Kerala State Insurance Department is only a
comprehensive Policy. The policy is produced in this case. We perused
the policy. It does not say that there is any wider coverage to cover 3rd
party vehicle to the full extent. As per the provisions contained in Section
147 (2) (b), the 3rd party property damage to the vehicles is limited to
Rs.6,000/-. Therefore unless the term of policy of insurance is extended
beyond statutory liability, the insurance company cannot be held liable.
The Court below found that on a true interpretation of the provision and
after analyzing the evidence that there is a wider coverage as per the
Policy issued in this case. The Court below found that a total amount of
Rs.96,81,193/- with interest is liable to be paid out of which Rs.6,000/- is
liable to be paid by the Insurance Company and the balance by the owner
of the mini lorry. When a policy of insurance is issued, the term of which
MACA No. 892 of 2004
3
are to be deducted from the document itself and not by any secondary
evidence as per Section 93 of the Evidence Act. If so, finding of the Court
below limiting the liability of the insurance to Rs.6,000/- is correct and
does not call for any interference.
The appeal is dismissed.
P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
dnc